Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: dna

nesea · Senior Member

So what's the lesson here? He admitted guilt and b/c a child can't/won't (probably shouldn't) testify against this creep he gets a year?

Neither justice nor humanity is served here.

Furor Builds Over Child Rapist's Sentence

By SEAN MURPHY

,

AP

posted: 4 DAYS 20 HOURS AGO

comments: 2414

filed under: Crime News, National News

Print

Share

OKLAHOMA CITY (June 16) -- A plea deal that sent an ex-convict accused of raping a 4-year-old girl to jail for only a year has prompted outrage across Oklahoma, where lawmakers are calling for the removal of the judge who approved the deal and the attorney general is investigating a new set of abuse allegations.

Under the deal, David Harold Earls, 64, of the southeastern Oklahoma town of McAlester, pleaded no contest last month to first-degree rape and forcible sodomy. Normally, the rape charge carries a sentence of between five years to life in prison, but the deal he struck with prosecutors called for 19 years of his 20-year sentence to be suspended.

Residents have since peppered the local newspaper with e-mails and letters questioning why the sentence wasn't harsher.

"I think they should have dropped the hammer on him," said Chris Lenardo, 35, who works at a local barber shop in McAlester, a town of about 18,000 people about 120 miles southwest of Oklahoma City. "I'm still trying to figure out why he's only getting a year."

Prosecutors said they only agreed to the plea bargain because the case rested largely on the testimony of the girl, now 5, who made contradictory statements during pretrial hearings. After initially testifying about the assault, she later said she couldn't remember the rape. At one point, the girl ran out of the room and down the hallway.

The case has generated more outrage as new accusations have surfaced. After Earls entered his plea, an estranged relative came forward to make a new allegation of a past rape. Although the statute of limitations likely has expired, it's possible the allegations could be used in another case against Earls if another victim comes forward, Attorney General Drew Edmondson said.

Edmondson said his office is looking at reviving a case against Earls involving the girl's brother. Those charges were dropped when the 5-year-old boy changed his story and said he couldn't recall the incident.

Child Rapist Gets 1 Year

My Turn · Senior Member

Psych Lit wrote:

this case is interesting on sooo many levels but especially the ethical level.
the person in question here is apparently not your solid citizen type. he was fingered by another person picked up for the crime and that person had the victims property and blood in his car. but the description given by the victim of the second man did not match and he said that he was innocent at the time of arrest and he had an alibi for the time frame of the event tho he was later that same evening with the person who did admit to commiting the crime. this takes place in alaska and this factors into the SC result later. at the time of his arrest dna tests were not very telling and the one done on him said that he was not ruled out as the perp. not ruled out is not the same as ya did it buddy. one fifth of all african americans had the same blood characteristics found in the test. what he had asked was for the sample to be retested once these newer more sophisticated tests became available. he asked his atty to petition for it but his atty refused to do so so he went to the federal system to get the test done and thats why this came into the SC. the argument as i read it is whether or not the federal govt should supply the tests if the states refuse and this is where it gets inky. alaska, where the crime happened, has never consented to this kind of request. so you get into, imo, an unequal justice situation here which i think does warrant the SC courts attention. given the high numbers of DNA clearance for people convicted of crimes it would appear that where you live is an important factor in whether or not youll have a chance to be cleared. this decision says nope its up to the states, a states rights thing. given that people in these states are denied sometimes life and liberty i would think this would be a federal matter of due process but the vote was close and it was a no go. heres the other ethical quandries presented. the guy was freed in 2006 by the parole board and yep, he had to say he did it or he wouldnt have received parole but after he was released was subsequently rearrested for another crime. often the people who fall er "victim" to these issues arent innocent babes in the woods, they often have checkered pasts, presents and futures. i wonder how that factors into the decisions to allow these convictions to stand without the dna testing which might clear them of the crime they are doing time for? of course it shouldnt be but does it? the other issue here is one of race and class and the race and class of those who are arrested and later cleared by DNA. if you have the resources to pay for the test yourself then you get out but if youre a member of the underclass you dont. and then there is the prison as crime school issue. this guy did 26 years for a crime that he may not have committed. i cant see his trying, even after release to clear his name, if he wasnt the second person involved. and yeah hes gone on to do other prison worthy things but maybe he wouldnt have been arrested again if he had not been arrested in the first place. had to recover from a 26 yr stint in the state pen. who hires you? micky ds for minimum wage or the drug dealer you met in prison who pays big bucks.

excellant post.

My Turn · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

My Turn wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.
Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

omg. are you actually saying that if evidence exists to prove someone is innocent of a crime for which they were wrongfully accused and convicted, that they should not be allowed to access that evidence to be exonerated? holy cr@p.
there are numerous cases in which a person has admitted guilt to a crime they did not do....it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which i would admit to doing something that i did not do....no matter what....but the sad fact is, this happens many more times than we think...and not just in criminal matters. it happens in day to day life...how many times have you thought someone did something and were totally convinced they did and they still deny it? i have had it happen to me and i hate that feeling.....especially when there is nothing you can do because the accuser is looking at, lets say, two statements, one by you and one by someone else and for no other reason they choose to believe one statement over the other.....it is a helpless feeling. additionally, in a criminal situation where people falsely admit guilt, most people feel that it is after hours and hours of interrogation that people finally just say what the interrogator wants to hear. it happens.
further, in the case above, it was the accused's lawyer who decided to forgo independent testing of the DNA evidence, quite possibly without the defendent's knowledge. i would also lay dollars to donuts that this attorney was a public defender, and many times, they are so over loaded with cases, they just wanna push them thru the system and may not really give the hard work and time required to fully represent their clients best interest as would a private attorney. is it right that someone that has money could get better defense and representation (even if they are most likely guilty, think: oj simpson, here) than someone who is totally innocent but lacks the funds for private representation?
i am blown away by the fact that anyone feels an innocent person must remain in jail for a crime they didnt commit.

-- Edited by My Turn on Friday 19th of June 2009 06:15:33 AM

No, what I'm saying is you may wish to either ignore me completely, read what I write sans this prejudice you seem to carry, or understand the function of the US Supreme Court. Preferably all of the above.

nope. that is not what you said at all. and the statement that i am prejudiced because i feel it is completely wrong to keep an innocent individual in jail, would be humorous if it werent so sad....sad that you feel it is ok, sad for this man, sad for the taxpayers who have to feed, clothe and house a potentially innocent man, sad that you think it is ok for the supreme court to rule that the states can determine "rights" to certain individuals based on certain things, sad that this man cannot avail himself of the technology now available....sad, sad, sad.....

i have to say that i am not the closed minded one on this discussion, and i find it much more interesting to have a discussion with someone, where even if i dont agree with what they are saying, that they are at the very least able to hold up their position in the discussion with relevant arguments and points. isnt that the point of a discussion board? confuse

Psych Lit · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.
Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

this case is interesting on sooo many levels but especially the ethical level.

the person in question here is apparently not your solid citizen type. he was fingered by another person picked up for the crime and that person had the victims property and blood in his car. but the description given by the victim of the second man did not match and he said that he was innocent at the time of arrest and he had an alibi for the time frame of the event tho he was later that same evening with the person who did admit to commiting the crime. this takes place in alaska and this factors into the SC result later. at the time of his arrest dna tests were not very telling and the one done on him said that he was not ruled out as the perp. not ruled out is not the same as ya did it buddy. one fifth of all african americans had the same blood characteristics found in the test. what he had asked was for the sample to be retested once these newer more sophisticated tests became available. he asked his atty to petition for it but his atty refused to do so so he went to the federal system to get the test done and thats why this came into the SC. the argument as i read it is whether or not the federal govt should supply the tests if the states refuse and this is where it gets inky. alaska, where the crime happened, has never consented to this kind of request. so you get into, imo, an unequal justice situation here which i think does warrant the SC courts attention. given the high numbers of DNA clearance for people convicted of crimes it would appear that where you live is an important factor in whether or not youll have a chance to be cleared. this decision says nope its up to the states, a states rights thing. given that people in these states are denied sometimes life and liberty i would think this would be a federal matter of due process but the vote was close and it was a no go. heres the other ethical quandries presented. the guy was freed in 2006 by the parole board and yep, he had to say he did it or he wouldnt have received parole but after he was released was subsequently rearrested for another crime. often the people who fall er "victim" to these issues arent innocent babes in the woods, they often have checkered pasts, presents and futures. i wonder how that factors into the decisions to allow these convictions to stand without the dna testing which might clear them of the crime they are doing time for? of course it shouldnt be but does it? the other issue here is one of race and class and the race and class of those who are arrested and later cleared by DNA. if you have the resources to pay for the test yourself then you get out but if youre a member of the underclass you dont. and then there is the prison as crime school issue. this guy did 26 years for a crime that he may not have committed. i cant see his trying, even after release to clear his name, if he wasnt the second person involved. and yeah hes gone on to do other prison worthy things but maybe he wouldnt have been arrested again if he had not been arrested in the first place. had to recover from a 26 yr stint in the state pen. who hires you? micky ds for minimum wage or the drug dealer you met in prison who pays big bucks.

Date: Fri Jun 19 10:38 AM, 2009

My Turn wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.
Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

omg. are you actually saying that if evidence exists to prove someone is innocent of a crime for which they were wrongfully accused and convicted, that they should not be allowed to access that evidence to be exonerated? holy cr@p.
there are numerous cases in which a person has admitted guilt to a crime they did not do....it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which i would admit to doing something that i did not do....no matter what....but the sad fact is, this happens many more times than we think...and not just in criminal matters. it happens in day to day life...how many times have you thought someone did something and were totally convinced they did and they still deny it? i have had it happen to me and i hate that feeling.....especially when there is nothing you can do because the accuser is looking at, lets say, two statements, one by you and one by someone else and for no other reason they choose to believe one statement over the other.....it is a helpless feeling. additionally, in a criminal situation where people falsely admit guilt, most people feel that it is after hours and hours of interrogation that people finally just say what the interrogator wants to hear. it happens.
further, in the case above, it was the accused's lawyer who decided to forgo independent testing of the DNA evidence, quite possibly without the defendent's knowledge. i would also lay dollars to donuts that this attorney was a public defender, and many times, they are so over loaded with cases, they just wanna push them thru the system and may not really give the hard work and time required to fully represent their clients best interest as would a private attorney. is it right that someone that has money could get better defense and representation (even if they are most likely guilty, think: oj simpson, here) than someone who is totally innocent but lacks the funds for private representation?
i am blown away by the fact that anyone feels an innocent person must remain in jail for a crime they didnt commit.

-- Edited by My Turn on Friday 19th of June 2009 06:15:33 AM

No, what I'm saying is you may wish to either ignore me completely, read what I write sans this prejudice you seem to carry, or understand the function of the US Supreme Court. Preferably all of the above.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.
Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

I would agree this wasn't the "best possible" test case for this issue, and yeah, his admitting to the crime at a parole hearing didn't help any, but that's the first thing inmates must do at parole hearings, in order to realize any hope of success there. I think that muddies the issue considerably, and would hope we could set it aside, in order to better consider the overriding issue.

It would seem the driving objective of our judicial system is not to see how many people we can incarcerate, but rather that justice is served, and if subsequent evidence may be obtained proving an inmate's innocence, that information SHOULD come to light at the inmate's request. Who can argue that the system isn't flawed, that innocent people have not, time and again, been sent to prison for crimes they didn't commit, only to be, decades later released when it was proven (by evidence such as DNA) they could not have been guilty? Alaska has a test -- a fairly inexpensive and simple test which can prove whether or not this man is guilty of the crime for which he is now, and has been for ... what? Close to 20 years? imprisioned. Test taken results given, he's either innocent or guilty. Where's the beef? But Alaska is refusing to allow this man the opportunity to have this test.

Again: what is our end goal in all of this "legal proceedings" junk? To "win?" Or to arrive at the threshold of "justice" and pass through that door? If there is a "reasonable doubt" as to this man's guilt, and that doubt can be easily either affirmed or dismissed, then why should the legislature of the state of AK get to decide whether or not this individual should remain imprisioned?

As for the pandora's box thing ... such could have been said about a lot of other SCOTUS cases, as well, including Gideon and Miranda.

My Turn · Senior Member

Anonymous wrote:

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.
Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

omg. are you actually saying that if evidence exists to prove someone is innocent of a crime for which they were wrongfully accused and convicted, that they should not be allowed to access that evidence to be exonerated? holy cr@p.

there are numerous cases in which a person has admitted guilt to a crime they did not do....it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which i would admit to doing something that i did not do....no matter what....but the sad fact is, this happens many more times than we think...and not just in criminal matters. it happens in day to day life...how many times have you thought someone did something and were totally convinced they did and they still deny it? i have had it happen to me and i hate that feeling.....especially when there is nothing you can do because the accuser is looking at, lets say, two statements, one by you and one by someone else and for no other reason they choose to believe one statement over the other.....it is a helpless feeling. additionally, in a criminal situation where people falsely admit guilt, most people feel that it is after hours and hours of interrogation that people finally just say what the interrogator wants to hear. it happens.

further, in the case above, it was the accused's lawyer who decided to forgo independent testing of the DNA evidence, quite possibly without the defendent's knowledge. i would also lay dollars to donuts that this attorney was a public defender, and many times, they are so over loaded with cases, they just wanna push them thru the system and may not really give the hard work and time required to fully represent their clients best interest as would a private attorney. is it right that someone that has money could get better defense and representation (even if they are most likely guilty, think: oj simpson, here) than someone who is totally innocent but lacks the funds for private representation?

i am blown away by the fact that anyone feels an innocent person must remain in jail for a crime they didnt commit.

-- Edited by My Turn on Friday 19th of June 2009 06:15:33 AM

Date: Fri Jun 19 4:25 AM, 2009

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.

Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

I disagree with the shock and awe. I give credit to the USSC for even "hearing" the case. The problem as I see it is that we are tending to look toward the courts to legislate from the bench when it is in the interest of our own heartstrings or even seemingly practical matters. The problem is that based upon Constitutionality? Which is what this group is for, the case of due process fell flat. The prisoners rights to due process were served in the States case. Evidence was legally gathered, he was offered the CSI "swab test", he admitted guilt. To open a Pandoras box of reverse justicing when due process and the points of state law were met is one that would bog this court down to a place we don't want it to go, that of natural selection. His "rights" and processes were met. Now it's time he meet the terms of his sentence. What? He doesn't like it in prison anymore? whaaaahhh, whaaaaahhh. Maybe he shouldn't have admitted the guilt, AT A PAROLE board hearing. It's not like it was even at trial or at the initial arrest!

crap, yes it's me, at home, forgetting to sign in. I invoke my right to appeal the anonymous. Someday ;)

T

Psych Lit · Guru

this is a startling decision. imagine being sent to prison for something that you know you didnt do with the knowledge that a dna test could clear you and then its denied. what im focusing on here is the 200 plus people wrongly convicted who have already been cleared by dna. makes the whole death penalty thing kind of iffy doesnt it? and what if someone is on death row in a federal prison, do they not have the right to a test which might spare them?

Court: Convicts don't have right to evidence

Posted 3h 29m ago | Comments 866 | Recommend 36

E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |


Enlarge	By Brian Bohannon, AP

Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledges testing's ability to prove innocence.

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON Prisoners have no constitutional right to biological evidence for DNA testing, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The 5-4 decision does not affect prisoners' efforts under state laws but rather rejects any federal right to evidence to try to prove innocence.

The dispute from Alaska centered on the modern testing technology that has led to the exoneration of more than 200 individuals. The Innocence Project, which represented the convicted rapist in the case, expressed disappointment in the ruling yet said it is unlikely to slow the momentum among inmates nationwide trying to win exoneration with DNA under state laws.

Forty-seven states have some laws allowing access to crime scene evidence, as does the federal government. These statutes vary widely. Some, including the federal law, require a prisoner to sign an affidavit attesting to his innocence with the request.

The question was whether constitutional due process of law guarantees a convict access to a state's biological evidence.

In saying no, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, acknowledged that DNA testing "has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." Yet he said inmates' access to such evidence in this situation from a rape case was a matter best left to the states.

The case split along familiar ideological lines. Dissenting justices said the court majority was rejecting a route that could "ascertain the truth once and for all."

William Osborne was charged with the 1993 kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman who was raped, beaten, buried in snow and left for dead.

Osborne's lawyer decided to forgo independent DNA testing of the state's biological evidence. Alaska officials said Osborne had no right to try to obtain the evidence more than a decade after the crime and when he had admitted guilt at a parole hearing.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, hearing Osborne's appeal, had ruled that he did have a right to the evidence.

Reversing, the high court declined to declare a federal constitutional right. That, Roberts wrote, "would take the development of rules and procedures in this area out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts."

Roberts emphasized that Osborne had been convicted and said he "does not have the same liberty interests as a free man." He was joined by Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the court was wrongly favoring "finality" of a conviction over the truth of Osborne's case. Also dissenting were Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter.