Nebraska’s First DNA Exoneration

By: Mr. Wilson on October 16, 2008
It is great to see that Nebraska has logged its first exoneration under the state's law that allows convicted persons to request DNA tests that may prove their innocence. Unfortunately, in this case it is difficult to declare Joseph White and Thomas Winslow completely innocent since the results of DNA tests only rule them out as the rapists of Helen Wilson; the results don't tell us anything about their role, if any, in Ms. Wilson's murder. DNA-based exonerations are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they get innocent people out of prison. But on the other hand, exonerations of any kind expose flaws in the justice system for all to see. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors fight DNA testing because they would rather have somebody behind bars than nobody. Victims' families often fight the process because they don't want to have to deal with the pain of the crime again. When convicted persons are proven not guilty, evils like racism and corruption in the criminal justice system are often exposed at the same time. Ultimately, it proves that countless taxpayer resources have been spent punishing someone while the real criminal is still on the loose, leaving us no safer than we were before. Freeing the innocent is worth uncovering those uncomfortable truths, but we need to be ready for them. This all leads me to wonder how good Nebraska is about pursuing post-conviction claims of innocence and analyzing potentially exculpatory evidence. Separating the valid claims from the baloney is no easy task, to be sure. Do we have any local versions of Craig Watkins, or perhaps his opposite?

Comments

See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

Neal
October 16, 2008 at 9:03PM

I don’t see why it’s a bad thing for flaws in the justice system to be exposed. If there’s a flaw in the justice system, I absolutely want that flaw to be visible.

CS
October 16, 2008 at 11:50PM

Absolutely, and since their trace DNA didn’t show up in any of the tests, and the other participants are recanting all over the place it brings questioning the entire case again-for example, the two that didn’t cut deals are still doing time for it. That sticks out a bit in my mind as a minor discrepancy.

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.