http://www.dallascandobetter.org/2009/05/exoneree-day-conference/ Working to right social injustice Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:04:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.dallascandobetter.org/2009/05/exoneree-day-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Antonio Fri, 15 May 2009 15:02:02 +0000 http://www.dallascandobetter.org/blog2/?p=326#comment-22 There once lived a well reputed man, by the name of Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court that noted - "It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned" and further, "concrete substance is bottomed on a fundamental determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free". Upon the spirit of the aforementioned, we as a society of decent people must take action in placing our elected officials under the microscope of humane and moral practices, complacent with the duties and obligations of their respective elected offices. Does it really take DNA testing or any other type of expensive scientific testing to prove a mans actual innocence? And if you could answer yes with a clear conscience, than you must ask yourself "Are you not than having to prove your innocence beyond the standard of a reasonable doubt?",. . .and if that is the case, would it be far to say that an innocent man must first prove that he is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. . .and that would mean that our justice system is foundated upon the untruth that a man is innocent until proven guilty. Why so many words, why so many words, just to say that a man should be innocent until proven guilty by concrete and credible substance? Why waste taxpayers money with these cases that the Office of the District Attorney never had any evidence of concrete substance to convict an innocent man to begin with? There once lived a well reputed man, by the name of Justice Harlan of the United States Supreme Court that noted – “It is critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned” and further, “concrete substance is bottomed on a fundamental determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free”.
Upon the spirit of the aforementioned, we as a society of decent people must take action in placing our elected officials under the microscope of humane and moral practices, complacent with the duties and obligations of their respective elected offices. Does it really take DNA testing or any other type of expensive scientific testing to prove a mans actual innocence? And if you could answer yes with a clear conscience, than you must ask yourself “Are you not than having to prove your innocence beyond the standard of a reasonable doubt?”,. . .and if that is the case, would it be far to say that an innocent man must first prove that he is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. . .and that would mean that our justice system is foundated upon the untruth that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Why so many words, why so many words, just to say that a man should be innocent until proven guilty by concrete and credible substance? Why waste taxpayers money with these cases that the Office of the District Attorney never had any evidence of concrete substance to convict an innocent man to begin with?

]]>