Wander & Wonder

David S. Rudolf

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Rating: 5 out of 5.

“We’re taught that justice is blind, but in my experience, justice is all too human. It sees what it wants to see.”

In his book, Rudolf highlights different individual cases wherein someone convicted of a severe crime was actually found to be innocent years later. He sheds light on the long and gruesome process of overturning a conviction and reveals the ways that personal biases, from those tasked with investigating a crime to the members of the jury, ultimately have the power to determine someone’s fate.

This book definitely left me feeling sad and upset at times. One of the cases that touched me the most was that of Darryl Hunt, who was wrongfully convicted of rape and murder. Despite the lack of physical evidence, Hunt was sentenced to life in prison. After 19 years of prison, Hunt was exonerated by DNA evidence. Ten years after his release, Hunt unfortunately commited suicide. This case made me reflect on the consequences of convicting an innocent man: the psychological trauma that this man and his loved ones endured, the torment of being in prison for two terrible crimes that he had nothing to do with, and the fact that the actual criminal was still at large during all those years.

What I admire about Rudolf is that he doesn’t dwell in anger or despair; instead, he offers constructive insights on how the system might be improved. He emphasizes the importance of questioning assumptions and ensuring fairness, writing, “The system only works if we keep asking hard questions of it.”

Rudolf’s book serves as a cautionary tale and an action for change. Although it is discouraging to think about how many innocent people serve time in prison today, I am inspired by the work by The Innocence Project, who have exonerated 251 individuals.

In the end, what is important to remember is that even if you think with all your heart that someone is guilty or that “no one else could have done it”, trials must abide by the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”. This means that the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, there must be no other reasonable explanation from the evidence presented at trial and as such, the jury must essentially be certain of the defendant’s guilt.

As human beings, it is easy to make biased decisions, often subconsciously. But in the end, would you rather put one innocent person in jail or let one guilty person go free? Obviously the ideal answer would be neither. But if I had to pick, I would rather let a guilty person be free than put an innocent person in jail. After all, imagine if you were sentenced to life in prison for a crime you did not do…