Sorry, ib. Can't go along with you when it comes to the state killing someone for expediency. BTW, as in the Texas case, what it means is that the real killer is still out there.
On a second point, you have your cost figures mixed up. DP cases are far more expensive that simply locking he guy up forever. In fact, a number of states ( New Mexico comes immediately to mind) have begun discontinuing DP cases as a cost saving mechanism.
Lastly, DNA evidence ( provided the cops don't falsify it) video camera images, a confession, catching someone in the act, etc) would all provide a level of surety which is not always present in DP cases. What the Innocence Project has found is that many cases are made on the basis of eye-witness testimony alone. Far too many people are about as observant as a loaf of bread. That, however, does not stop some prosecutor from using them as the sole source of evidence.
On a second point, you have your cost figures mixed up. DP cases are far more expensive that simply locking he guy up forever. In fact, a number of states ( New Mexico comes immediately to mind) have begun discontinuing DP cases as a cost saving mechanism.
Lastly, DNA evidence ( provided the cops don't falsify it) video camera images, a confession, catching someone in the act, etc) would all provide a level of surety which is not always present in DP cases. What the Innocence Project has found is that many cases are made on the basis of eye-witness testimony alone. Far too many people are about as observant as a loaf of bread. That, however, does not stop some prosecutor from using them as the sole source of evidence.
