Introduction
The justice system is not void of errors and Romeo Philion knew this too well than most people would. The 1972 murder sentence he got robbed him the most precious years of his life. He would be in jail for 32 years due to a failure that has become prevalent today. Incidences of withheld of evidence, false confessions, and sometimes the court errors are now a common phenomenon (Clow & Leach, 2015). Philion became a victim of such errors when he was wrongly convicted of murder that he did not commit. The object of this research paper is to consider the facts of the case as well as the analysis of the why and the how the judges arrived at the initial verdict case.
Case Facts
The man murdered in this case was a superintendent employed …show more content…
Herbert, the oil burner serviceman, was the next person to see Mr. Roy. He had come to clean the furnace and has been chatting with Roy before his wife first called him out. On finishing his work, Helbert found Roy covered with blood on the basement stairs and a knife wound just exactly below his heart (Bernburg, 2006). He went out to his truck to radio his company to alert the police, but they took too long as Roy was already dead by the time they arrived. Awhile later after the incident, Mrs. Roy, who saw the face of the prowler three times, tried to identify him in “line-ups” that included Romeo and also in photographs (Ross, 2015). She could not make any positive identification hence the release of …show more content…
However, he did not conduct further investigations at the time to determine whether Romeo’s alibi was valid or not. What happened instead is that Romeo became the lead suspect in the Mr. Roy’s homicide investigation (Moles, 2009). Not even the recanting of the confession would save him from the jail term for non-capital murder. While Romeo may have been in the town when the crime occurred, he may not have necessarily been the one who committed the crime. Mrs. Roy, who saw the prowler thrice, did not identify him as a possible suspect.
Romeo seems to have internalized the murder crime when he was included for identification. His self-concept appears to have been ruined by that time and hence may have influenced him to present himself as a suspect in the homicide, probably in the hope to please Neil Miller. He narrates the story to Miller claiming that he is the one who committed the crime and Miller immediately reports him to the police. Despite no conclusive evidence to prove that he was the one who committed the crime, the judge passed a guilty
The justice system is not void of errors and Romeo Philion knew this too well than most people would. The 1972 murder sentence he got robbed him the most precious years of his life. He would be in jail for 32 years due to a failure that has become prevalent today. Incidences of withheld of evidence, false confessions, and sometimes the court errors are now a common phenomenon (Clow & Leach, 2015). Philion became a victim of such errors when he was wrongly convicted of murder that he did not commit. The object of this research paper is to consider the facts of the case as well as the analysis of the why and the how the judges arrived at the initial verdict case.
Case Facts
The man murdered in this case was a superintendent employed …show more content…
Herbert, the oil burner serviceman, was the next person to see Mr. Roy. He had come to clean the furnace and has been chatting with Roy before his wife first called him out. On finishing his work, Helbert found Roy covered with blood on the basement stairs and a knife wound just exactly below his heart (Bernburg, 2006). He went out to his truck to radio his company to alert the police, but they took too long as Roy was already dead by the time they arrived. Awhile later after the incident, Mrs. Roy, who saw the face of the prowler three times, tried to identify him in “line-ups” that included Romeo and also in photographs (Ross, 2015). She could not make any positive identification hence the release of …show more content…
However, he did not conduct further investigations at the time to determine whether Romeo’s alibi was valid or not. What happened instead is that Romeo became the lead suspect in the Mr. Roy’s homicide investigation (Moles, 2009). Not even the recanting of the confession would save him from the jail term for non-capital murder. While Romeo may have been in the town when the crime occurred, he may not have necessarily been the one who committed the crime. Mrs. Roy, who saw the prowler thrice, did not identify him as a possible suspect.
Romeo seems to have internalized the murder crime when he was included for identification. His self-concept appears to have been ruined by that time and hence may have influenced him to present himself as a suspect in the homicide, probably in the hope to please Neil Miller. He narrates the story to Miller claiming that he is the one who committed the crime and Miller immediately reports him to the police. Despite no conclusive evidence to prove that he was the one who committed the crime, the judge passed a guilty