With new DNA tests proving that Jerry Miller did not commit a brutal rape in Chicago for which he was convicted in 1982, the Innocence Project said today that Miller is the 200th person in the nation exonerated through DNA evidence.
In 1981, Miller was arrested and charged with kidnapping, raping and robbing a woman in downtown Chicago. He was convicted in 1982 and served 24 years in prison. Eleven months ago, he was released on parole as a registered sex offender, requiring him to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times and prohibiting him from answering his door on Halloween or leaving his job for lunch. DNA testing on semen from the rape proves that Miller did not commit the crime – and instead implicates another man as the actual perpetrator.
A few of the stats on those wrongly convicted:
Eyewitness misidentification plays a role in 77% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA (of those, nearly half are cross-racial misidentifications).
Racism continues to be a significant cause of wrongful convictions. While 29% of people in prison for rape are black, 64% of the people who were wrongfully convicted of rape (and then exonerated through DNA) are black. Moreover, most sexual assaults nationwide are among perpetrators and victims of the same race (the federal government says just 12% of sexual assaults are cross racial), but two-thirds of all black men exonerated through DNA evidence were wrongfully convicted of raping white people.
None of this is a surprise to anyone who cares about removing the stain of racism from our national culture. The cruelest part of the equation is the number of jurisdictions where the politicians in charge of “justice” still drag their feet over reforming a system that so often fails.
jz,
I would say fabricated evidence is the rule and not the exception. Take for example this guy who was acquited just yesterday.
http://www.thestate.com/426/story/45903.html
The article is dripping with bias, even though the jury saw all the evidence and acquited the guy, the “journalist” still assumes he is guilty.
Hinson is obviously no saint. But the jury didn’t beleive the girls story. It would be nice if the “journalists” in this case would cover the case in such a way, so that we could see how it was possible that the jury came to such a contradictory conclusion.
Oh and here is this story of what happens to the women who maliciously accuse men of rape. BTW it is an extremely rare occurrence that false accusers are charged at all. But even then, only four months for ruining a guys life???
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/5302
Also, for clarification, that 40% FBI number, 50% general law enforcement number, and 60% by Air Force reckoning, is women who recant their rape allegations. By definition the number of women who falsely accuse, then never recant must be higher than that.
Given the statistics, and what we are learning with DNA evidence, I stand by my assertion, if not my actual math, that the vast majority of rape accusations are false.
Also, I missed in this very thread, Podesta accused me of rape, simply because I have a reality based viewpoint rather than a politically correct one.
#24, 25 apparently you need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word necessarily.
Having DNA evidence that doesn’t match one person doesn’t mean that person wasn’t at the scene of the crime. It just means that there is no DNA recovered at the scene that matches that suspect. Therefore a DNA non-match after conviction isn’t necessarily an exoneration. It would depend on the facts of the case. The Duke is one example where a DNA mismatch would not be enough evidence for me to think they were exonerated. Here you have a group of people so I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the DNA didn’t match. Of course, the rest of the details of that case speak differently, and support exoneration. In summary, DNA matches can show guilt, as they have done thousands of times for people on death row(I wish the Innocence Project would highlight this as well), but a lack of a match doesn’t necessarily show exoneration as is claimed in so many cases.
The Duke lacrosse players were not exonerated. The attorney general’s investigators, after an incredible amount of pressure, decided there was insufficient evidence to go forward. It is still possible that they did perform sexual abuses of the alleged victim.
BTW, I am curious about how long the defendant who had another abuse case will stay out of trouble. Time will tell.
Podesta,
Roy Cook explicitly used the word “innocent” and stated matter a fact, “no attack happened”.
That is as close to exoneration as you are gonna get.
The your own sexist biases reveal themselves with your delusional oposition to the facts on this case, and rape in general. Never mind your hysterical accusation at me.
Mr Fusion,
Part of one of the links you cited references the Summers rape study of college students. Because of the incredibly poor methodology of that study, I find your whole post to be tainted.
Please post again, when you can post something that is not based on outright delusion.
What’s that about lies, damned lies, and statistics?
More on the bogus rape stats can be found here:
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=5259&pid=609
My two favorite lines:
The first reason for skepticism is that 73 percent of those defined by Koss as victims of rape did not themselves believe they had been raped. Additionally, 42 percent of these women later proceeded to have sex again with the men who had purportedly raped them.
So, Mr. Fusion, have you been just duped by the Feminazi crowd or are you a card carrying member?
#39 & 40,
Geeze, you guys can’t post any sources, only other published bullshit.
Greg, you claimed the FBI said 40% of rapes were unsubstantiated. Just post that one. If it is true, then post it. Of course, if you can’t back it up it just shows you for the fucking asshole you are.
BTW, in case no one ever told you, just because it is on the WWW does not mean it is true.