SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (8033)4/10/2002 9:28:41 AM
From: jcky  Read Replies (2) of 21057
 
It seems like common sense to me, that is, allowing the most recent and accurate technology of DNA analysis to ascertain the innocence or guilt of convicts (this is especially true with rape cases). I don't view this issue as a right of prisoners, but rather, a duty of society.

I think part of the hesitation belies the potential blow our judicial system will take when DNA testing points to the multiple flaws and holes in our current system. How will this affect the public perception of confidence in our legal system if DNA testing proves there may be an alarmingly high rate of conviction of the innocents based upon "circumstantial evidence" or a single distressed witness?

The downside, on the other hand, will be a sheer flooding of our courts for DNA testing by every single convict. All convicts believe they were falsely accused of their crimes. I suppose this is part of the mentality of the criminal mind. But if the judicial system is obligated to protect the innocent and punish the guilty then what alternative is there?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News