He was convicted justly? No he wasn't. He was convicted injustly! That's the whole point. I say he should have sued for more.
On 1/25/07, Rick wrote: > > A winston salem man, who had been imprisoned for 18 years for some heinous > crime (murder, I think) was exonerated a year or so again when DNA > evidence > became available that proved his innocense. > > The state of North Carolina, under state law, paid him almost $360,000 for > the wrongful imprisonment. > > He is now seeking $2.5 million from the city of Winston Salem. They've > offered him $500,000. > > Now, if you ask me, he shouldn't get anything from the city. Yes, he has > lost 18 years of his life for a crime he (apparently) did not commit. But > he was convicted justly under the law with the evidence that was available > at the time. A jury of his peers reviewed the evidence and felt that the > evidence was strong enough to put him behind bars for a very long time. > > Why should the tax-payers be held responsible? I could understand if > they'd > been negligent or willfully withheld evidence or something.. but this is > evidence that simply wasn't available in 1984. > > What do you think? > > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:225710 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
