230 criminal cases in NC tainted by SBI deliberately withholding evidence.

Link

Quote :

The North Carolina justice system shook Wednesday as an audit commissioned by Attorney General Roy Cooper revealed that the State Bureau of Investigation withheld or distorted evidence in more than 200 cases at the expense of potentially innocent men and women.

The full impact of the disclosure will reverberate for years to come as prosecutors and defense attorneys re-examine cases as much as two decades old to figure out whether these errors robbed defendants of justice. Some of the injustices can be addressed as attorneys bring old cases back to court. For others, it's too late: Three of the defendants in botched cases have been executed.

OOPS.

Quote :

Two former FBI agents, Chris Swecker and Mike Wolf, examined more than 15,000 cases at the invitation of Cooper, a Democrat who has been attorney general since 2001. The exoneration of Greg Taylor, a Wake County man imprisoned 17 years for a murder he didn't commit, prompted the review. SBI analyst Duane Deaver admitted in February that he failed to report tests indicating a substance on Taylor's SUV was not blood. Deaver, who was suspended Wednesday, said that his bosses told him to write reports that way.

Quote :

The News & Observer reported this month in a series, "Agents' Secrets," that analysts across the laboratory push past the accepted bounds of science to deliver results pleasing to prosecutors. They are out of step with the larger scientific community and have fought defense attorneys' requests for additional information needed to review the SBI's work. Cooper last month dismissed SBI Director Robin Pendergraft after she struggled to answer questions about SBI cases and policies.

...Wow. Just... wow. Don't know that I can say much more than that, only that I wonder how many other deliberately botched cases are out there, floating around in the NC justice system's records, besides just these ones.

We had that problem in Houston a few years ago. I think about five people had been executed who were innocent. The lab that was shut down because of this is still disgraced and the city is not allowed to process it's own evidence.

Holy shit. After watching some stories on Investigation Discovery about cases like these, I thought they were more isolated incidents, but now I'm wondering how many people are wrongfully in jail.

This is why forensic science should be independent.

This is why the death penalty should be outlawed and prison conditions should be improved.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

This is why the death penalty should be outlawed and prison conditions should be improved.

Yes. If someone has been falsely imprisoned they atleast can be released, but the guys who got executed "whoops! Lets go revive 'em" is not exactly an option.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

This is why the death penalty should be outlawed and prison conditions should be improved.

Prisons aren't going to improve when over half of the prison population is incarcerated on trump up drug charges.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

This is why the death penalty should be outlawed and prison conditions should be improved.

Prisons aren't going to improve when over half of the prison population is incarcerated on trump up drug charges.

Especially not when the prisons are increasingly privatized.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

This is why the death penalty should be outlawed and prison conditions should be improved.

Prisons aren't going to improve when over half of the prison population is incarcerated on trump up drug charges.

Agreed, which is why I think that the "War on Drugs" is a fucking joke and illegal drugs should be legalized. While doing drugs is neither a smart nor healthy thing to do, if you aren't supporting gangs and crime through buying them, and if you're not actively hurting someone to get them or while on them, the only victim involved is YOU.

The War on Drugs is like the War on Alcohol, aka Prohibition, except my boneheaded government hasn't realized that yet.

As regards the death penalty, I support it when it comes to executing people, like, to use an easy example of someone who was obviously guilty of horrible, HORRIBLE crimes, Ted Bundy. But I think that it should be used very, very sparingly, and cases like this do make me question its use in our legal system as it is now.

[quote="Malganis"]

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Agreed, which is why I think that the "War of Drugs" is a fucking joke and illegal drugs should be legalized. While doing drugs is neither a smart nor healthy thing to do, if you aren't supporting gangs and crime through buying them, and if you're not actively hurting someone to get them or while on them, the only victim involved is YOU.

Tell that to the people whose meth labs blow up every other week here. Too many stories here about kids OD'ing, about neglect, about abuse...the whole damn thing has gotten out of control.

I'm not talking about hard "street" drugs like cocaine or heroin. I'm talking crystal meth, ecstasy, and even stuff like "Special K" and Oxycontin stolen out of vet offices. Stuff that is easy to manufacture, easy to distribute, cheaper than the hard stuff, and much harder to argue is something that "should" be legalized because what benefits they may have are vastly outweighed by the negative impact they have on society.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Agreed, which is why I think that the "War of Drugs" is a fucking joke and illegal drugs should be legalized. While doing drugs is neither a smart nor healthy thing to do, if you aren't supporting gangs and crime through buying them, and if you're not actively hurting someone to get them or while on them, the only victim involved is YOU.

Tell that to the people whose meth labs blow up every other week here. Too many stories here about kids OD'ing, about neglect, about abuse...the whole damn thing has gotten out of control.

I'm not talking about hard "street" drugs like cocaine or heroin. I'm talking crystal meth, ecstasy, and even stuff like "Special K" and Oxycontin stolen out of vet offices. Stuff that is easy to manufacture, easy to distribute, cheaper than the hard stuff, and much harder to argue is something that "should" be legalized because what benefits they may have are vastly outweighed by the negative impact they have on society.

Great point, and I'll admit that in the above post, I'd forgotten about things like meth, etc, and was thinking solely in terms of stuff like cocaine, or stuff that's grown in someone's greenhouse or backyard, like pot.

Maybe I should amend that to "not actively hurting someone to MAKE them", as well? Though I think that anyone who would make something like crystal meth around their kids is probably gonna be a piss-poor parent with or without any crystal meth in their lives.

Also, is ecstasy dangerous to make? I know that sometimes pills of it are tainted, but the same could be said for heroin or cocaine. I wasn't aware that it was dangerous to make, as meth is.

Malganis wrote:

Also, is ecstasy dangerous to make? I know that sometimes pills of it are tainted, but the same could be said for heroin or cocaine. I wasn't aware that it was dangerous to make, as meth is.

It can be - apparently one of the new things is to cut ecstasy with methamphetamine (since getting MDMA, the actual ecstasy ingredient, is expensive or difficult). Not to mention that like most other chemical compounding that requires heating, there's the danger of overheating...with explosive consequences.

Spotts1701 wrote:

I'm not talking about hard "street" drugs like cocaine or heroin. I'm talking crystal meth, ecstasy, and even stuff like "Special K" and Oxycontin stolen out of vet offices. Stuff that is easy to manufacture, easy to distribute, cheaper than the hard stuff, and much harder to argue is something that "should" be legalized because what benefits they may have are vastly outweighed by the negative impact they have on society.

Except the most of people being incarcerated for drug possession aren't drug dealers, but victims of drug abuse. They are treated as being criminals rather than being ill. They aren't getting the help they need in prison and when they get out they are right back on the streets continuing the cycle of drug abuse. I'm not saying that when drug user gets busted for theft, they should be let free, but they should be in a secure rehab facility during their incarceration. There also need to be government financed harm prevention programs as well. Which is common sense, but the government has never been known to use common sense.

What's even more disgusting is that being caught with a pound of marijuana could get you more time in jail than statuary rape.

[quote="XLT-100852.0"]

Spotts1701 wrote:

they should be in a secure rehab facility during their incarceration.

I could offer my living room. Listening to the junkies below 'debating' each other at the top of their lungs all afternoon is enough to make you stay off drugs forever. Mind you, these guys (and girls) have 'social' jobs and are on meth and therefore safe... except that they steal beer at the supermarket, let their huge dogs unleashed in the park where kids play, and occasionally stab each other to death when the disagreement escalates.
Perhaps it would be better if they were forbidden to see each other, some of them may at least try to crawl back to what they once were. But hanging around with the crew all afternoon kills their will to kick the habit, as long as they don't look as bad as the worst of them (one died last year. The newspaper said she was 25, and she looked 40)

Even if you eliminated all the crime and danger involved with the drug trade, you're still left with addiction - and addiction hurts more than just the addict.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

What's even more disgusting is that being caught with a pound of marijuana could get you more time in jail than statuary rape.

That really chaps my ass.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Even if you eliminated all the crime and danger involved with the drug trade, you're still left with addiction - and addiction hurts more than just the addict.

Yes, it does. I'm certainly NOT saying that addictions or using drugs are good things; I just want to make that clear.

But still, alcohol is legal for people over 21 to buy and consume -- as much as they want. A person can be addicted to alcohol and that's perfectly legal -- as long as they don't commit a crime to support that addiction, become publicly intoxicated, or do something like drive drunk.

It's legal for people over 18 to buy tobacco - but that's highly addictive and ultimately harmful to both the person smoking it and the people around them who have to deal with the smoke - and the possibility of the smoker getting fatal illnesses from smoking. Yet cigarettes are legal, whereas something like pot, which probably isn't as harmful, isn't legal. Where's the sense in that?

Maybe legalizing some or all drugs isn't the answer -- it's entirely possible that it isn't, so maybe I'm wrong in saying that they should be legal. But is the American "War on Drugs" actually doing anything to help people who are addicts, or is it just criminalizing them and adding more costs and more stress on our law enforcement and legal system, who should be working on prosecuting violent criminals and people who do harm others, instead of going after a guy who grows a bit of pot or whatever in his greenhouse. Also, other things that are potentially just as harmful are legal, within certain limits, so why is the government criminalizing a person's choice to use some things and not others? It doesn't seem to make any sense, at least to me.

Malganis wrote:

Yet cigarettes are legal, whereas something like pot, which probably isn't as harmful

Nobody ever had a road accident because they were under the influence of tobacco.

Quote :

other things that are potentially just as harmful are legal, within certain limits, so why is the government criminalizing a person's choice to use some things and not others?

Honestly, I think some substances should be restricted/controlled. Heroin, for instance, will always be dangerously addictive no matter how safely it's produced. Methamphetamine will always be dangerously addictive and will always produce a much longer lasting high than crack or heroin.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Yet cigarettes are legal, whereas something like pot, which probably isn't as harmful

Nobody ever had a road accident because they were under the influence of tobacco.

But people under the influence of alcohol have. And alcohol is legal.

Also, Mal, I think I read somewhere that joint is just as harmful as a cigarette, and that anyone who says otherwise is using biased and cherrypicked information to support their argument.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Yet cigarettes are legal, whereas something like pot, which probably isn't as harmful

Nobody ever had a road accident because they were under the influence of tobacco.

But people under the influence of alcohol have. And alcohol is legal.

That's what killed me about banning smoking in pubs.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Yet cigarettes are legal, whereas something like pot, which probably isn't as harmful

Nobody ever had a road accident because they were under the influence of tobacco.

Actually, you could possibly argue that they have - my parents were in a car accident that could have easily been fatal (though it just totaled their car, instead) because the woman who was at fault was trying to light a cigarette instead of paying attention to her driving.

Then again, that probably falls under the category of "shit you shouldn't do while driving", like talking on cell phones, etc.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

other things that are potentially just as harmful are legal, within certain limits, so why is the government criminalizing a person's choice to use some things and not others?

Honestly, I think some substances should be restricted/controlled. Heroin, for instance, will always be dangerously addictive no matter how safely it's produced. Methamphetamine will always be dangerously addictive and will always produce a much longer lasting high than crack or heroin.

You have a point. *nods*

Mr. Doobie wrote:

Also, Mal, I think I read somewhere that joint is just as harmful as a cigarette, and that anyone who says otherwise is using biased and cherrypicked information to support their argument.

Even if it is, why is the joint illegal and the cigarette isn't? If they both destroy someone's health, why can't the person freely make the choice to either smoke or not smoke either of them, instead of the government arbitrarily criminalizing one of them for reasons which probably in the end have little to do with public health and safety.

Also, I note the irony of you saying this.

On the subject of addicts/drunks:

Welcome to my family.

My oldest uncle just recently got out of prison, after having been in for a ten year stint. This was not his first incarceration, and I hesitate to say it will be his last, because much as I love my uncle, he's an addict, and I've come to accept some facts of this world.

What was he in for? Possession, and breaking and entering. He was high/drunk and broke into someone's house, a house he used to live in, because he apparently thought he still lived there. The recommended sentence was 11 months to two years. Judge gave him ten with no chance of parole.

This is not unusual in our country. The breaking and entering was wrong, and my uncle deserved the charge. But he didn't deserve the years. He's not violent, even when high/drunk. He's more likely to just sit in the corner and mind his own. He got no drug treatment in prison, just like thousands of addicts, and every time he was released before, he went right back to his normal way of doing things. This is not abnormal behavior for an addict. After all, what do they have? They can't get jobs with the felony charges laid on them, they have no support system. Even if they are clean when they get out, where's their motivation to stay clean? For most of them, there's no one who cares.

My family cut ties with my uncle for a long time, because they thought it would make him see straight. All it did was drive him further into his addictions, and after my grandma finally renewed contact with him, and got him help, he was getting better before his last relapse that got him in prison.

My uncle is not young. He's in his mid-fifties, and he has spent more than half his life in prisons for drug charges. He's not strong anymore, and he wouldn't survive another stint in prison. The only reason he hasn't fallen again is because he has his family, his parents and his brothers, taking care of him and doing their very best to make sure he doesn't get sick again.

Most addicts do not have this. They fall right back into their old ways.

Prisons are not the place for addicts. They need to be in treatment facilities, real ones, ones that actually know what they're doing and want to help these people get better. All you get by putting addicts away is overfilling the prisons so that real offenders don't get the time they deserve, and violent offenders get early releases. This "War on Drugs" BS is exactly that: bullshit. There is no war, there are people pushing highly addictive, dangerous drugs on people and making them sick. And our country chooses to punish the addicts too, even when they're not the dealers.



As for the actual subject, this is fucked up. I wonder how many of them were deliberately withheld because they were convinced they had the right guy, even when they had evidence to the contrary? How many people have been wasting away in prisons, being abused and, not to beat the horse to death, becoming addicted to the drugs dealt in the prisons? People can have this nice noble image of the innocent being dignified and controlled up until their vindication, but you want to know what actually happens? The innocent become just like the other people in there as a survival mechanism, or just pack mentality. They fight back and they start taking drugs to deal with their problems.

Our prison system is fucked up enough without innocent people in there too.

Lapin wrote:

The breaking and entering was wrong, and my uncle deserved the charge. But he didn't deserve the years. He's not violent, even when high/drunk.

This. The US needs to srsly look at who and why we are imprisoning people.