Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3600)	3/20/2002 7:54:39 AM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I remember a rape case in Illinois where 5 years or so after the guy was convicted DNA proved he wasn't guilty. The victim then admitted to lying. He was released on probation while waiting for the governor's pardon. The idiot got drunk and got into a bar fight which broke his parole so he got sent back to finish his sentence even though the original conviction was tossed out.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3600)	3/20/2002 9:30:41 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It makes the police look bad and the court system look bad (after all, people begin to wonder why these people were prosecuted and convicted in the first place, only to be exonerated bybDNA evidence) AND it costs money. There is absolutely no incentive for the state to pay for the privilege of making itself look stupid. That is why in all cases the champions of prisoners are defense attorneys or families or concerned private citizens.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3600)	3/20/2002 10:26:25 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The fact that law enforcement officials often resist DNA tests should give us pause not only about their immediate motivations, to cover up a specific possible humiliating goof, but also about how sure we should be that considerations other than a pursuit of truth and justice always govern, in trials in general. This isn't a complaint about our system, which I believe to be about the best human beings have devised. It's an observation about human nature. Motivation affects perception. There are strong motivations for those on the prosecution case to solve cases and convict somebody. They aren't (usually) evil for, uncomfortably frequently, convicting the wrong person. They are human, and see it as they wish to. As they need to to win rewards, material rewards and ego rewards. I think we have sufficient evidence that this is the case that we shouldn't be either refusing DNA tests or putting citizens to death. After death, you remain convicted, innocent or guilty.