http://www.innocenceproject.org/free-innocent/improve-the-la...
I've never understood how the possibility of new evidence doesn't immediately reopen a case (in general). I thought we wanted real, actual, blind justice based only on facts and absolutely nothing else. It turns out it is rarely that simple.
We, as the potential victims of injustice want a real, actual, scientific, blind justice system that presumes innocence and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, checked by a jury that can nullify laws, and the like.
Politicians want to be "tough on crime" so they appoint judges and prosecutors who get convictions. Judges want to be re-elected because they are "tough on crime" (in places where judges are elected) Prosecutors want to have a successful career so they will do anything they can get away with to get a conviction. The police want to have the case be off their hands and to be "closed" so that their stats look good because it's good for their career because the Mayor wants to be "tough on crime" and so the police find the first plausible suspect and try to build a case.
All these organizations are in cahoots, literally, and so no prosecutor is going to indict a judge or cop unless they absolutely have to.
So long as the public can be lead to believe they live in a society with the "rule of law" not the "rule of man" then nothing more needs to be done. And the public is very gullible! (Especially when you control the schools and you raise them to be gullible.)
IT's not that these people are evil. ITs that they are self interested.
The founding fathers attempted to put in checks and balances and they did a damn good job.
But over the past 200 years, they have been systematically eroded.
Things are clearly very backwards.
The problem was that the method they used, i.e. how they were taught, was incorrect.
So it's not so easy to throw it out as you might suspect - it's the job of jury to decide if the evidence is "good" (they hear lots of evidence, much of it conflicting). True, the jury relied on false information on what counts as good. But because the jury accepted the evidence undoing that is not as simple as you think unless there are specific laws about it.