1) The media comes up with their own ideas on the case and sways everyone else's opinion and half of the information stated is false. The media should not play a role in the legal system and it should be left to the court. I don't think we should tell the media as much as we do because they tend to sway opinions.
2) I think it is very important that we reexamine past cases because of the improvements. It is very unfair for those who have been imprisoned due to the inadequate technology. The disadvantage to this is that old cases means old evidence that may not be of any use because of the case's age. Samples may have dried up etc.
3) If someone is convicted of a crime as heinous as murder I feel it is the right thing to do to compensate …show more content…
1969:Truscott is released on parole and moves to Guelph, Ont., he adopts a new identity, marries, and raises three children.
March 29, 2000: Truscott breaks decades of silence proclaiming his innocence, in a documentary. The program reveals new evidence to suggest that police may have been hasty in arresting him.
November, 2000: A team of legal advocates from AIDWYC assist Truscott.
November 2001: Truscott and his AIDWYC lawyers file an application for retrial section 696.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Minister only considers whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred.
January 2002: Having conducted a preliminary assessment of Steven Truscott's application, the department of Justice recommends that an outside agent be retained to assist in the review of the case. Minister has three options. He can: refer the case to the Court of Appeal, order a new trial, dismiss the application.
October 28, 2004:Federal Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, “We have a legal and I believe moral obligation to see if the new evidence would have affected the verdict."
January 18, 2005: Truscott turned