The Iowa Supreme Court has now made it possible for people who previously pled guilty to challenge their sentence and claim innocence. Before the Court’s decision, even if new evidence had come to light, the convicted person could not ask for a reexamination of the situation. In the past, they could only challenge their previous sentence if they claim that they had pleaded guilty unknowingly or not voluntarily.
Now, if someone has pled guilty, they can challenge their sentence with new evidence. This idea has been applied to the Iowa court system because of a recent case concerning Jacob Lee Schmidt, who pled guilty to accusations relating to child sex abuse. Later, after he was convicted, the victim refuted all accusations and claimed that Schmidt had never abused them.
This new addition to the Iowa court system had already been introduced to 13 other states, and many believe that it should be introduced at a national level. Often, someone pleads guilty to a crime that they never committed in fear of losing a trial and receiving a severe punishment, such as the death penalty. To put someone, an innocent human being, in that situation, where they are backed into a corner, where they must lie and accept a punishment for something they never did, is an injustice that resonates through the entire American justice system.
The United States Supreme Court had unanimously ruled that something like this could not be created at a national level, stating that the defendant gives up their rights to a trial when they admit to the crime. However, it is still common for people to admit guilt when they are innocent, because of the pros and cons of doing so. This new “innocence plea” acknowledges that injustice and allows change to finally begin to happen.
