This blog is a collection of student comments on the concepts and questions that they are examining as they are introduced to forensic science.
Monday, November 1, 2010
$18 Million to Man Wrongly Imprisoned
Kip Stack11/1/10
Forensics C BlockMr. Ippolito
Just recently a man who was wrongly accused of rape, robbery, and assault was let out of prison. He was let out due to testing of his DNA and the fact that it did not match the DNA collected from the victim. He has been in prison for more than two decades and for the past four years he has been fighting to have DNA evidence from the case tested against his DNA. He also received help from his lawyer and the Innocence Project group to rerun tests on the crime scene DNA against his DNA. “It said that of about 50 people from New York City it had represented in the last five years, half had received the DNA evidence in their cases from the city. In the other cases, the city was unable to produce the evidence or explain what had happened to it.” In the end since he was falsely accused the jury said that what the city did had violated his rights and he was awarded $18.5 million.
This article may change how forensic science is conducted because the New York City police department was so careless and just jumped to a conclusion. Now the forensic scientists will most likely be much more careful and base their accusations and conclusions on results. Just reading this article may scare people because after this incident their might be a fear of other people being wrongly accused. There also might be questions about other cases in the past and how other people in prison right now might be innocent. I chose this article because reading the title caught my attention. As I read it, it made me become interested to know how many falsely accused people are in prison and how many mistakes the police have made.
Overall I think the article was well written, but there are a few areas of it where the author could have improved. I think it could have been better if he expanded more about the forensic science part. Another area where I think there could have been improvement was talk a little less on what he has been up to lately.
Kip presents the basic topic of this article very well and made it easy to understand. He gives valid information about why this man was in prison and why he was then released. I also like how he was very specific in his details about the case, instead of being vague. This is a strong attribute in his article because it provides more individual characteristics about this man which makes the case more interesting. Another thing I liked was how he addressed what could have been better. I agree in that the article could have been more up to date of what this man is doing now he is out of prison. The review could have been even better if Kip included the guy who was in prison’s name. Just using “He” throughout the blog made it seem as if this guy could be any one. Also, I would have liked to see three distinct paragraphs in his blog. There are only two present and if there was the last paragraph which could explain why this information is relevant to us. I was impressed by this article because I was surprised, even after a man is convicted for murder, he can still provide a valid reason why he was innocent. It seems as if it would be very difficult to prove yourself innocent after being convicted. It’s also impressive that later he was proven innocent. There are many cases where people are inaccurately accused and punished, but not many innocents, accused guilty, come out of the prison like this man did.
1. He did a good job of giving lots of important information. 2. He made it easy to understand. 3. I like how he said what this article may mean. 1. He could have used the guys name. 2. He was missing some non-essential, but interesting details that would have been nice to know. 1. I was surprised that the man only received 18 million dollars. I don't know what else he could receive but being in prison wrongfully would be the worst and money isn't going to make up for all the time he has lost.
Kip’s summary of this article is very thorough and made it very easy to understand the topic. I likes that Kip provided a specific view on the article through his points that he made. This article provided characteristics of the man which makes the case more intriguing. I also liked that Kip mentioned that the article could have been more up to date with what the man is doing now that he is out of prison. Kip’s summary could have been better if he mentioned the man’s name that was accused of the crime. This article was very surprising because even after the man was convicted for murder, he could still defend himself saying that he was innocent. It is interesting that after he defended himself for being innocent , that then he was released after the court went over the case. This is surprising because usually in crime cases, if a person defends themselves for being innocent they usually die in prison even though they might have been innocent.
He describes this article very well and made it easy to comprehend.. He shows good points about why the guy was in prison and why he was released. This article provided facts about the man which makes the case more interesting. I agree that this article could have been more up to date with what this man is doing out of prison at the moment.
The review could have been even better if Kip stated who the name of the guy who was in prison. The repetitive use of “He” in the current event made the article lose value. Also, I feel the article was too clogged together.
It is interesting that after the man declared himself innocent, he was released after the court went over the case. This is shocking because most of the time in crime cases people who defend themselves usually end up in prison.
I think Kip chose a terrific article to write about, and was particularly interesting to me. Specifically, I liked three things about the article. I found Kip’s style of writing to be very terse; deliberately ignoring unnecessary information and just getting right to the point. Another thing I liked is the fact that the man in the article was released from jail due to his determination for freedom. He tried for two decades to prove his DNA to be innocent, and eventually succeeded. Therefore, the man was wrongly accused, as Kip said, and was set free. Finally, the third thing I liked about this article was that the forensic evidence that set the man free is beneficial for the greater good of society. It can help keep the real criminals locked up and let the innocent ones go. However, despite the pros of this article, I also found some cons. This article could have been better if Kip had provided quotes or any other specific examples of what he is trying to tell us in this article. Also, I think his writing style is terse – a little TOO terse, that is. Next time, try to be a little more descriptive, okay? In conclusion, this article both concerned and fascinated me. I hope to hear another current event soon. That is all.
5 comments:
Kip presents the basic topic of this article very well and made it easy to understand. He gives valid information about why this man was in prison and why he was then released. I also like how he was very specific in his details about the case, instead of being vague. This is a strong attribute in his article because it provides more individual characteristics about this man which makes the case more interesting. Another thing I liked was how he addressed what could have been better. I agree in that the article could have been more up to date of what this man is doing now he is out of prison.
The review could have been even better if Kip included the guy who was in prison’s name. Just using “He” throughout the blog made it seem as if this guy could be any one. Also, I would have liked to see three distinct paragraphs in his blog. There are only two present and if there was the last paragraph which could explain why this information is relevant to us.
I was impressed by this article because I was surprised, even after a man is convicted for murder, he can still provide a valid reason why he was innocent. It seems as if it would be very difficult to prove yourself innocent after being convicted. It’s also impressive that later he was proven innocent. There are many cases where people are inaccurately accused and punished, but not many innocents, accused guilty, come out of the prison like this man did.
1. He did a good job of giving lots of important information.
2. He made it easy to understand.
3. I like how he said what this article may mean.
1. He could have used the guys name.
2. He was missing some non-essential, but interesting details that would have been nice to know.
1. I was surprised that the man only received 18 million dollars. I don't know what else he could receive but being in prison wrongfully would be the worst and money isn't going to make up for all the time he has lost.
Kip’s summary of this article is very thorough and made it very easy to understand the topic. I likes that Kip provided a specific view on the article through his points that he made. This article provided characteristics of the man which makes the case more intriguing. I also liked that Kip mentioned that the article could have been more up to date with what the man is doing now that he is out of prison. Kip’s summary could have been better if he mentioned the man’s name that was accused of the crime.
This article was very surprising because even after the man was convicted for murder, he could still defend himself saying that he was innocent. It is interesting that after he defended himself for being innocent , that then he was released after the court went over the case. This is surprising because usually in crime cases, if a person defends themselves for being innocent they usually die in prison even though they might have been innocent.
He describes this article very well and made it easy to comprehend.. He shows good points about why the guy was in prison and why he was released. This article provided facts about the man which makes the case more interesting. I agree that this article could have been more up to date with what this man is doing out of prison at the moment.
The review could have been even better if Kip stated who the name of the guy who was in prison. The repetitive use of “He” in the current event made the article lose value. Also, I feel the article was too clogged together.
It is interesting that after the man declared himself innocent, he was released after the court went over the case. This is shocking because most of the time in crime cases people who defend themselves usually end up in prison.
I think Kip chose a terrific article to write about, and was particularly interesting to me. Specifically, I liked three things about the article. I found Kip’s style of writing to be very terse; deliberately ignoring unnecessary information and just getting right to the point. Another thing I liked is the fact that the man in the article was released from jail due to his determination for freedom. He tried for two decades to prove his DNA to be innocent, and eventually succeeded. Therefore, the man was wrongly accused, as Kip said, and was set free. Finally, the third thing I liked about this article was that the forensic evidence that set the man free is beneficial for the greater good of society. It can help keep the real criminals locked up and let the innocent ones go.
However, despite the pros of this article, I also found some cons. This article could have been better if Kip had provided quotes or any other specific examples of what he is trying to tell us in this article. Also, I think his writing style is terse – a little TOO terse, that is. Next time, try to be a little more descriptive, okay?
In conclusion, this article both concerned and fascinated me. I hope to hear another current event soon. That is all.
Post a Comment