This pardon was issued pursuant to a wrongful conviction claim.
Surely by now we know that the mere fact someone has been convicted of a crime, and spent years in prison, does not make them guilty of it and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be pardoned.
Surely by now we know that the mere fact someone has been convicted of a crime, and spent years in prison, does not make them guilty of it and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be pardoned.
There are idiosyncrasies about this case that perhaps make a wrongful conviction claim problematic.
They center around the judge who presided over the defendant's trial and sentenced him to life in prison.
They center around the judge who presided over the defendant's trial and sentenced him to life in prison.
So this judge later became convinced of the defendant's innocence - this by itself would normally be a persuasive thing for any wrongful conviction claim.
But the judge then took the very bizarre step of actively inserting himself into the case. He contacted the victim and after that she recanted her testimony. Ethically this is beyond inappropriate & he was censured by the bar.
So it's all very strange and murky.
So it's all very strange and murky.
Perhaps the OP could have gone into all of this in her thread.
What I take exception to is a tweet that says only that someone has been convicted of something terrible and that they have been pardoned, without any context.
What I take exception to is a tweet that says only that someone has been convicted of something terrible and that they have been pardoned, without any context.
Whatever the facts of this case, most people aren't doing independent research, so the OP's whipping them into a frenzy over just the idea that it is wrong to pardon someone convicted of an horrific crime.
And that's incredibly irresponsible, especially if you're a journalist.
And that's incredibly irresponsible, especially if you're a journalist.
(Thank you @G_Padraic for mulling this over with me.)
