What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: Why would anyone—even prosecutors—object to the widespread use of DNA evidence in all cases?

Barry Scheck: Well this has changed over time.  At first when we began our work at the Innocence Project, and there’s a problem within the system generally, there were all kinds of what we call “procedural bars.”  To getting a post-conviction DNA test, much less being able to offer the results in court.  In fact, there were no states that permitted post-conviction DNA testing and there were only nine states that said that you could raise a claim of newly discovered evidence to show that you were innocent at any time.  So many states had time limits, statutes of limitations. 

In Virginia, there was an infamous 21-day rule.  Twenty-one days after the trial, even if you’d found new evidence of innocence you could put it into court as newly discovered.  In other states is was one year or two years or three years or six months.  I mean, there were all kinds of problems like this.  So we were able to get passed now in 48 states, statutes that allow for post-conviction DNA testing.  And Massachusetts is one of the states that doesn’t have a statute, but you can, based on what they call common law, you can usually get a test result, but they should pass the statute. 

So the point here is that from the very beginning, there were all kinds of impediments to even getting this evidence into court.  And at first when we went into court and we said to the prosecutors, “Oh, well look at this case.  There’s an obvious basis to doing a DNA test and it could prove somebody innocent and maybe identify the real perpetrator, why don’t you consent to it?”  And in many instances they would.  In many instances they did not.  Not for particularly rational reasons, I must tell you.  Which is really, I guess the subject of your question, why would anybody resist this?  Right?  And then even after the DNA proof came in, why would prosecutors still say, “Oh no, no, we’re going to uphold the conviction.”  And that is a question for cognitive psychology.  And a lot of people thought about it.  I think there are a number of factors.  The first is very simply, it’s human nature.  People don’t like to admit they’re wrong.  We’re all like that.  Number two, and maybe well I don’t want to give Primacy to any of these, they’re all worked together.  There’s the problem that when somebody’s convicted, there’s a victim, or a victim’s family in the case of a homicide.  And the prosecutor has said, “Well, this defendant is a horrible person, a beast, an animal in some instances they would say, “kill this person, committed this most heinous of crimes.”  And now you have to go back to the victim’s family and say, “Guess what.  We were wrong.” 

Well that’s very difficult for a victim or a family and we see it so often in the sexual assault cases.  In particular, there was an eye witness misidentification so hard for somebody that’s been subject to such a brutal crime to now – who made an honest mistake in making a misidentification to now say, “Oh my God, I was wrong.”  I mean you feel doubly, triply violated.  It’s a horrible burden to carry.  

So there’s a lot of reluctance to upset victims within a community.  So that’s a second factor that inhibits prosecutors sometimes and police from acknowledging a wrongful conviction or even opposing an effort to get a DNA test. 

And then finally, and this may be more subtle, but I think it’s a very, very important factor because in a lot of cases we would find the prosecutor, who was standing in the way of the DNA testing and refusing to acknowledge the obvious implications of the new evidence, wasn’t even in office when the crime was committed.  And the reason, I think, that some of these prosecutors were so reluctant to go along with what was I think a clearly just outcome or even to find out the truth or get better scientific evidence that would shed light on the truth, is that they’re afraid of the next case. 

So if we have an exoneration in an eye witness identification case and now I’m trying a new case in front of the jury, the jury had just heard about this big exoneration and they’re always big news.  They should be too.  And they’re going to be thinking; maybe I shouldn’t trust this eye witness.  Or maybe that case involved police misconduct, maybe I shouldn’t trust the police.  Or it was a false confession; maybe I shouldn’t be so sure that a confession means that somebody is really guilty. And on it goes.  So I think that they’re worried about the next case. 

The truth is that if you are a prosecutor that has the reputation for going back and looking back at old cases and correcting errors, I think that you’re reputation for reliability goes up. 

More from the Big Idea for Friday, September 17 2010

 

Why Would Anyone Object to ...

Newsletter: Share: