The U.S. criminal justice system is geared to closing cases, not making sure only the guilty are in prison. With the advent of DNA evidence, hundreds of wrongly convicted people are being exonerated and released from America’s prisons, and indication of how appallingly unreliable the system is. And one of its most pernicious features is the practice of prosecutors and parole boards of treating defendants more harshly for claiming innocence, which invariably is interpreted as a lack of remorse. (Do they ever ask themselves how someone can feel remorse for a crime they didn’t commit?)
Today, we have a story from NBC News about a man serving time in New York’s Sing Sing Prison for a murder he insists he didn’t commit. Specifically, he was convicted of killing a cop who ran an illegal numbers parlor on the side. Earlier this month, a judge denied his request for a hearing to consider evidence he contends proves his innocence.
Jon-Adrian Valesquez was picked out of a photo montage by a drug dealer who thought the shooters eyes looked different. Valesquez didn’t match the description in other respects. No physical or forensic evidence linked him to the crime, and he had an alibi: He was home and talking to his mother on the phone when the crime occurred, and phone records proved it. But “the jury didn’t buy it” and Valesquez was convicted on nothing more than the shaky testimony of eyewitnesses who themselves weren’t sure he was the shooter.
Years later, the witness who first identified Valesquez told NBC News that he just picked a photo from the montage at random because the cops were threatening to charge him with the murder. A second eyewitness also recanted and said he fingered Valesquez for the same reason — the cops were threatening him. And after NBC broadcast a story about the case, two people came forward and said the police’s original suspect had admitted being the shooter to them.
The DA says his office investigated Valesquez’s claims, but didn’t find enough evidence to prove him innocent, and opposed reopening the case. The judge agreed with the DA. But why should Valesquez have the burden of proving his innocent? Why shouldn’t the state have the burden of defending the verdict? After all, the state owns and runs the criminal justice system, and should the responsibility for correcting its mistakes should rest with the state.
But our legal system isn’t geared to correcting mistakes. It emphasizes resolving disputes, closing cases, and enforcing the finality principle. In America, once you’ve been wrongly convicted, it’s extremely difficult to get the legal system to take another look at your case. Even if the conviction is as flimsy as 
in Valesquez’s case.