I'm astonished to read of a miscarriage of justice in Holland that's only just been corrected. It has implications for judicial systems all over the world, which is why I'm highlighting it here. The Globe & Mail reports:
Ms. [Lucia] de Berk ... has lived a Kafkaesque nightmare for the past nine years, sentenced to life in prison for crimes that Dutch prosecutors admitted may never have occurred.
She was convicted of murdering seven patients and attempting to kill three others while she was working in three Dutch hospitals between 1997 and 2001. She served six years in prison, two of them under constant observation on a psychiatric ward, before she was publicly exonerated earlier this month.
While in jail, she suffered a stroke that left her partially paralyzed. She still has no use of her right hand.
Throughout her trials and appeals, Ms. de Berk, who is now 48, insisted she is innocent. Legal scholars and a support committee campaigned for her release, and the case is the subject of books and documentaries.
“In the beginning, when it all starts, you don’t believe it’s going to last as long as it does,” she says. “So after you’re first in prison, you think this is such a mistake and they’re going to find that out.”
With each twist and turn of the legal process, her hopes were revived and then dashed. “After the first three months, they say more investigations have to be done, so you think, okay, I can last another three months,” she recalls. “And then there would be something else. And that’s how you hang on.”
The case against Ms. de Berk began after a hospital investigation of the death of an infant on her watch. It ultimately turned on faulty statistical probabilities.
An expert witness for the state testified that the chances were one in 342 million that so many suspicious deaths would take place during the shifts of one particular nurse. But his data and method of calculating the odds were eventually discredited, as prosecutors finally conceded when they asked for the dismissal of all the charges against Ms. de Berk last month.
On April 14, a court granted the acquittal. In their ruling, the judges said that there was no evidence that any of the patients she had been accused of killing had died of anything other than natural causes.
Ms. de Berk was in the courtroom to hear the decision, although the Dutch Attorney-General had called her to his office two weeks earlier to inform her and to apologize personally. He later apologized in public.
There's more at the link.
This leaves me open-mouthed with astonishment. Am I to understand that Ms. de Berk was convicted, not on the basis of forensic evidence or the testimony of eye-witnesses, but solely on the grounds of statistical probability - and flawed statistics at that??? What sort of justice system would even dream of convicting anyone on such grounds? Surely they'd heard the old saw that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?
I've never heard of any other court case where guilt or innocence was decided solely on the basis of statistics, and by the evidence of a single 'expert' witness (who turned out to be anything but expert!). Does any reader know of a similar incident? If so, please let us know in Comments. Meanwhile, one can only wish Ms. de Berk well as she gets used to her freedom again, and trust that she'll receive a handsome payout from the Dutch government for her wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
Peter
8 comments:
You ask how often this has happened? I merely ask you to look at all the conictions that were "sealed" by DNA evidence that have later been reversed. The "Innocence Project" can give you additional information on the DNA cases.
stay safe.
At least they had the cajones to admit the screwup and apologize publicly. Most countries, and sadly often true here in the US, the justice departments would sweep the whole thing under the rug and hide their complicity in the false imprisonment.
Something very similar happened in Canada. She wasn't convicted but her life was ruined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Nelles
A woman was convicted here in the UK after she lost two babies to "cot death". A medical expert said that the chances of having two deaths to the same cause was millions to one.
She was convicted and served time until an appeal pointed out that the odds were miscalculated and that the chance of a second baby dying in the same way was actually higher than normal.
I'd like to think that at least with our philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" you should never have someone convicted of a crime that they can't prove even happened.
The philosophy of "innocent until proven guilty" is a very nice theory! But in practice - both from reading media reports as well as personal experience - the judicial systems seem to operate on the principal of "you are guilty until you prove your innocence".
This also applies (especially) to tax authorities, goverment owned corporations and many (if not most) police departments. Several examples are published on this blog notably the article of The dange of relying on calling 911 for assistance and the more recent article Another needless death, caused by sheer carelessne... as an example. The same goes for family and child custody court cases of which there have also been articles on this blog. As well as my personal experience with the judicial and government authorities.
im a criminal justice major and some have suggested that the number one committed felony is when a cop lies in court. I happen to believe this, lieing for police officers is standard procedure, they will say or do anything to get anyone to admit to committing a crime regardless of the fact that you actually did it or not.
its just like how alot of people a few decades ago were convicted of molesting and raping children by their caregivers (usually some sort of child care place)
this was because of suggestive and some times coercive interviews by law enforcement and other authorities.
The whole time these people were innocent, a husband and wife in this particular incident. both went to jail the husband was later killed in jail (because guards told inmates he was a child molester, and allowed them to kill him).
this just goes to show how most people in a case as nasty and brutal cases like these sometimes forget about justice and get worked up to believe anything.
the sad thing is no one cares, its the typical american mentality of, "that will never happen to me".
Post a Comment