Richards 0
Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 0
Quoteam no expert, but with modern DNA can we not reduce the likelyhood of a false conviction to almost zero?
No, unless a tissue or fluid sample of the perpetrator is part of the evidence- example, the perp's blood or skin under the vicitim's fingernails after being scratched out in a struggle, semen, hair follicles, saliva, etc. If none of that is part of the available evidence, DNA probably won't do much to either assure or prevent a conviction.
QuoteQuoteam no expert, but with modern DNA can we not reduce the likelyhood of a false conviction to almost zero?
No, unless a tissue or fluid sample of the perpetrator is part of the evidence- example, the perp's blood or skin under the vicitim's fingernails after being scratched out in a struggle, semen, hair follicles, saliva, etc. If none of that is part of the available evidence, DNA probably won't do much to either assure or prevent a conviction.
Absolutely. Further to that, we can't always trust forensic scientists giving their evidence not to be "Helping-The-Police" as one such scientist in England famously did on several high profile terrorist cases in the 1970's & 1980's. Had there been a death penalty in England at the time, the "Birmingham-Six" and "Guildford-Four" would certainly have been executed rather than being released as innocent.
IF you want more on the infallibility of forensic evidence, then google "Shirley McKie" and follow the whole sick tale of "Forensic-Infallibility".
And that's the whole problem with execution. If someone's imprisoned for life, then they can be released if later proved innocent (it DOES happen). You can't bring the executed back to life.
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoteQuoteam no expert, but with modern DNA can we not reduce the likelyhood of a false conviction to almost zero?
No, unless a tissue or fluid sample of the perpetrator is part of the evidence- example, the perp's blood or skin under the vicitim's fingernails after being scratched out in a struggle, semen, hair follicles, saliva, etc. If none of that is part of the available evidence, DNA probably won't do much to either assure or prevent a conviction.
Absolutely. Further to that, we can't always trust forensic scientists giving their evidence not to be "Helping-The-Police" as one such scientist in England famously did on several high profile terrorist cases in the 1970's & 1980's. Had there been a death penalty in England at the time, the "Birmingham-Six" and "Guildford-Four" would certainly have been executed rather than being released as innocent.
IF you want more on the infallibility of forensic evidence, then google "Shirley McKie" and follow the whole sick tale of "Forensic-Infallibility".
And that's the whole problem with execution. If someone's imprisoned for life, then they can be released if later proved innocent (it DOES happen). You can't bring the executed back to life.
Mike.
We have a number of cases in Illinois and Texas where the state crime lab "helped" the police by faking evidence, and a number where police obtained confessions by torture (www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DBUS,DBUS:2006-10,DBUS:en&q=jon+burge+torture). The general consensus among thinking people is that the authorities cannot be trusted the 100% that would be needed to justify a death sentence, either with forensic evidence or with confessions
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
dorbie 0
QuoteThere are some people that are beyond rehabilitation. Why waste money on keeping them alive?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/03/sex.ritual.ap/index.html
Methinks that's one trial that won't go well for the accused.
QuoteQuoteThere are some people that are beyond rehabilitation. Why waste money on keeping them alive?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/03/sex.ritual.ap/index.html
Methinks that's one trial that won't go well for the accused.
It's certainly one that'd be worth watching (if only for the comedic defence)!
Mike.
Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.
Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.
Richards
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites