Posted on 05/06/2002 6:51:44 AM PDT by rw4site
DNA evidence is a clear indicator of guilt or innocense in cases where it can be used
Nonsense. The criminal justice system is a complete joke--we convict innocent individuals by the hundreds--sure a lot of them are guilty of other crimes; lots of other excuses you hear from prosecutors. But the bottom line is that we have criminalized way too much conduct to administer prosecution effectively; and way too many individuals are wrongly convicted.
Don't forget to pay your ACLU dues.
It means that there are numerous barriers to your eventual freedom that are stacked against you.
We no longer need to worry about making mistakes.
In principle or theory.
But, the fact is DNA cah prove there is no match. The converse is not true.
I think that the fingerprint is very good and for all intents and purposes does show a match, but technically it cannpt prove a match, whereas the opposite is true. A non-match is proof.
DNA evidence alone can prove someone didn't do it. DNA evidence alone should not be enough to prove someone did it though.
David
Do you have any source information to back this up or is it just your opinion?
David
David
Do you have any source information to back this up or is it just your opinion?
David
I take it he is not referring here to the prenatal death penalty system we have.
Cordially,
Something doesn't sound authentic here, including this statement. I'd need to know more. What kind of DNA evidence? What was the problem in obtaining that evidence in his case? Not incidentally, identification through bite marks is not bad forensic science, though every so-called "forensic scientist" is not competent. I'd appreciate any background information any Freeper could provide, including directing me to sites where I could get more information about the case.
You have spent more space in your post referring to the victim than Mr. Krone and his atty. did in their whole piece.
The "system" still has a very small failure rate if you consider your "killer is still free" factor. It has a zero failure rate as far as actually putting to death innocent people. Nobody has been able to come up with one case where someone innocent has been put to death. And a lot of people have tried to.
If your definition of the system "working" includes putting an innocent man behind bars for ten years, I would hat to think what your definition of its not working might be.
As far as the death penalty, which is what Mr. Krone and his atty. wrote about, I'd say "not working" would be Mr. Krone having been put to death by the "system".
If you wish to change the subject to wrongful convictions then pick any criminal conviction type you wish and you can say that the (insert conviction here) system is broken too. Rapes, auto theft, arson, drug crimes, etc,etc. All broken when any percentage of any of those people are wrongfully convicted?
As far as Joyce Gilchrist? Your post #35. Still nothing there but speculation. As the links you pointed to show.
How is putting an innocent person in prison for 10 years an example of the system working? The guilty party went free and the innocent was punished; a double crime.
The problem with this statement is that it is overly simplistic. It's like the atheist saying, "I see no direct evidence for a God(s)" therefore he/she/it/they do not exist - period. There are more complicated factors involved. I think for the most part, while I don't agree with capital punishisment, every person who has been put to death at least was responsible for the crime that they were accused of. However, as can clearly be seen at least 100 men have been freed, not 1 or 2 or 3, but 100. This doesn't trouble you in the least? You honestly think that an innocent man has NEVER been put to death in this country?
You're saying, you can prove, absolutely, that EVERY executed convict was guilty? Odds are most of them probably might have, but you must trust every jury, every cop, every judge, etc., without ANY possibility of error or corruption?
Perfection?
We can't "prove" so many things, events, happenings.
We're still working on JFK, TWA 800, and a few others.
We can't perfectly prove any executed were innocent, and we can't perfectly prove they were guilty, and we can't perfectly find a lot of unknown culprits.
Sorry, but I can't accept your assumption that proving innocence is a criteria. So much of human action is unprovable.
But, if you're omnipotent, you may have a following.
I am sure everyone is dying to know just how convicting innocent men benefits you, politically, religiously or do you work for the judicial system?
By the way WTF is “victocrat”?
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.