Here's a real "which would you do?" dilemma:
A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison had at least two chances to make parole and be set free — if only he would admit he was a sex offender. But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn't commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.
"Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it," Dupree, 51, said Tuesday, minutes after a Dallas judge overturned his conviction.
Which is worse, to be innocent but in prison or free but considered guilty? If it were any other kind of crime, I might choose the latter, figuring I could tough it out despite the opinion of others until my name was cleared. But since it's a sex crime, the requirement to register means, essentially, continued punishment. That might make the prospect of not finally being exonerated harder to contemplate.
Comments
I admire his tenacity. This case underscores the problem with jailing anyone based on an identification by one eyewitness. It's too easy to make a mistake and it ought to be unconstitutional.
BTW, $3 million isn't enough for 30 years of your life in prison. He ought to get ten times that.