Judge Sentences Man He Believes is Innocent

	posted by Scott on Friday August 10, @03:39PM from the news dept.
	Ched sent in this story from the Boston Globe about a man who was found guilty for armed assault with intent to murder and armed robbery, but the judge apparently disagreed with the jury's decision and has pretty much openly stated that he feels he is sentencing an innocent man: "This is the most difficult moment I have been faced with during my legal career,'' [Judge] Murphy said. ''I am mindful of the possibility that I am sending an innocent man to jail.''" The man was sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. The question is: why???

	Source: The Boston Globe Title: Judge sentences man even though he doubts his guilt Author: Unknown (AP story) Date: August 9, 2001

<  "Deadbeat Dads" Myth Gets a Good Debunking | Sugar And Spice And Everything Nice? Not Likely.  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why (Score:0) by Anonymous User on Friday August 10, @10:10PM EST (#1) I can understand the frustration one feels when hearing a story like this one. It seems unjust. But there is a counterpolicy. A judge can in some cases make a Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, but in such cases people ask the same question: why? If a judge does this, people wonder what's the point of having a jury at all, and those who strongly feel the person was guilty often are outraged and call it an injustice. A judge in a jury trial is supposed to allow the jury to decide questions of fact (what happened) while the judge only decides questions of law (what rules apply and when). Only if a judge feels that no reasonable jury could decide the way a particular one did is a judge allowed to override a jury's decision. A judge to "believe" someone is innocent while also deciding that a jury made a reasonable decision that the person is guilty. It's a tight squeeze, but not logically inconsistent, because even reasonable people can differ as to whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This must have been a very difficult decision for the judge, but I wouldn't be too quick to find the judge did the wrong thing. Marc

Re:Why (Score:2) by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Saturday August 11, @10:22AM EST (#2) (User #187 Info) I agree, Marc. This is one case in which the judge recognized his actual role in the judicial system. Some judges today feel like they're supposed to *make* the laws/take the law into their hands alone, or use the bench for partisan politics. He probably did the best he could. We all must remember that there's a reason for our courts of appeals in this country. If the judge feels that strongly the jury was mistaken (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were), the judgement against the convicted man may be overturned by a higher court. It certainly bears watching.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]