Posted on 01/19/2023 5:52:11 AM PST by Rummyfan
The use of DNA to arrest Bryan Kohberger for the murder of four college students in Idaho reminds me that it's time to bring the death penalty back in a big way.
Notwithstanding the absence of a single example, the possibility of executing the "wrong man" has been the left's main line against the death penalty for decades. It's the only argument that has ever lessened Americans' support for capital punishment.
Well, guess what? Thanks to the miracle of DNA, now there's no risk! The murderer can usually be identified with greater than 99.99% accuracy.
Good news, right? Nope! As we now know (also with 99.99% accuracy), liberals never cared about executing the innocent. They just want to spring killers.
Until fairly recently, DNA was a one-way ratchet, used to free criminals, but rarely to catch and convict them.
Recall that DNA fingerprinting was only invented in 1984. The first time DNA was ever used as evidence in a U.S. court was in 1987. Courts weren't sure what to make of this "novel" technology, and of course, it was treated like witchcraft by the O.J. jury in 1995.
Back then, genetic evidence was used primarily to overturn jury verdicts from the 1970s, '80s and '90s by poking holes in the prosecution's theory of the crime.
The media whooped about every overturned conviction, falsely claiming the prisoner had been PROVED INNOCENT.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Silly article. It seems Ann never heard of the Austin crime lab scandal.
The science makes DNA undeniable, but the problem is we need unreliable people to do that science.
And,of course,the DP for certain military/national security crimes.
DNA should only be trusted if the testing and custody of the evidence is carried out by a trustworthy institution such as the DOJ or the FBI. If the custody and testing is carried out by a local police force, the police chief needs to have an ESG score equal to or higher than a black lesbian for the evidence to be trusted.
The defense won’t attack the DNA itself....my guess is what they will probably do is attempt to cast doubt on how and why the DNA was there to begin with.
But I,unlike some (many?),am willing to see an *occasional* person be wrongly executed if it means that many,many truly guilty people *are* executed.
I think Annie is over estimating the number of honest liberal, but she is speaking rhetorically.
Law students are taught “If you have the law,pound the law.If you have the facts,pound the facts. If you have neither,pound the prosecutor”. I’ve never been a juror but if I ever am and see that the defense is pounding the prosecutor I’ll know that my vote will be “guilty”.
Oh so am I, my point is that DNA evidence alone isn’t enough unless you have 100% confidence in the people doing the testing.
The problem with DNA use in prosecutions today is that they can supposedly check for one just skin cell. If someone is murdered at a store I frequent, my skin cells would be present. Am I the killer? Ann seems to trust the police and prosecutors a little too much.
In the Idaho case, he looks like the killer, based on the info they’ve released so far. I am just talking above about in general, the use of DNA is becoming somewhat questionable if “touch DNA” is used.
“But I,unlike some (many?),am willing to see an *occasional* person be wrongly executed” -— Wow. What an admission.
... hopefully you forgot the ‘(/sarc)’ tag ...
“Liberals: WE MUST PREVENT THE POLICE FROM USING DNA TO CATCH MURDERERS! Wait a second! Weren’t you the ones worrying yourselves sick about the possibility of executing the innocent?”
NO. Liberals are mostly concerned with NOT convicting the guilty (if they’re DemocRATs or their supporters) and convicting the INNOCENT if they are Republicans.
Are you volunteering to be that "*occasional* person be wrongly executed"?
If you hate for a serial murderer or rapist get the death penalty, but it's liberating for thousands of babies per yer to be pulled out of the womb feet first until only the head is left in, a "nurse" hold the babies arms and legs still, then a "doctor" puncture the baby's skull with a sharp pointed tube and suck the baby's brains out ... you might be a Democrat.
I believe that's what happened in the Amanda Knox case in Italy. The authorities found a microscopic amount of her DNA, amplified it, confirmed it was hers, then assumed that she must have committed the crime. The problem was, she was a freaking inmate of the house in which the murder had occurred. Her DNA was all over the place.
DNA should only be trusted if the testing and custody of the evidence is carried out by a trustworthy institution such as the DOJ or the FBI.
++++++++++++
Did you forget the sarcasm tag??
Did I read that right? Trustworthy? By that logic, Trump would be on Death Row by now.
Just because DNA is found at a crime scene doesn’t prove that the person was ever there. I can walk into any public restroom on the planet and obtain countless DNA samples and then leave them at a crime scene. Doesn’t mean any of them did anything wrong. DNA analysis also doesn’t come with a timestamp, so you can never say when it was transferred. It does come down to needing a lot of other physical evidence. There’s a big difference between finding a minute spec of skin and there being a pool of blood.
I suspect the jury there in Idaho isn’t gonna be too awfully sympathetic to this dude but we’ll see. It’s gonna be a long trial.
Also, I have been a juror but nothing as serious as this......a real eye opening and educational experience but if I’m never called on again I’m good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.