"An FBI investigator testified in Roman's trial that tests eliminated him as a suspect, but a jury convicted him on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony, according to the arrest warrant affidavit for Miranda."

This story, courtesy of The Associated Press, would be incredible except stories like it are becoming so common.

Miguel Roman has just been released from prison after 20 years. He was serving a 60-year sentence for murdering his pregnant girlfriend. The only problem is that he didn't do it and the prosecution knew he didn't do it at the time of the trial 20 years ago. The FBI investigator said he couldn't be a suspect, but the state tried him anyway and convinced the jury he was guilty.

Roman was 32-years-old at the time he was sent to prison. He had an 8-year-old daughter who is now 28. He missed all that time with her. Just imagine.

And all that time he was behind bars, the real killer roamed free.

It's bad enough that the state of Connecticut put this man on trial. The prosecution knew better. But the question arises, "in the face of the FBI investigator's testimony that Roman couldn't have been the killer, how did a jury decide 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that he was anyway?"

My answer is that (a) we live in a time in which we rush to judgment and (b) that's particularly true when a man is charged with injury to a woman.

(a) Generally, I believe that we have developed into a culture in which we seem to urgently need to condemn someone (anyone) for something (anything). It seems to fulfill some deep-seated desire. The airwaves throb with fear and loathing of others. And our criminal justice system shows it clearly. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our people than any other country in the world and often for the slightest offenses. People convicted of simple drug possession make up an astonishing percentage of those incarcerated.

(b) And of course the hysteria against men has been well documented and continues undiminished. We've been condemning men for simply being men for over 30 years, and for being rapists (remember, all men are) and violent against women (remember, "almost all" DV is done by men against women). Virtually any allegation of DV (regardless of how thin) against a man is sufficient to get him thrown out of his house and separated, perhaps permanently, from his children.

So let's not view Miguel Roman's case as exceptional. The main way it's the exception is that he is now free.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence/DV System, Crime/Criminal Justice System/Police, False Accusations. You can trackback from your own site.