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 (8033)	4/10/2002 9:28:41 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to 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?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8033)	4/10/2002 9:45:31 AM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

The debate over DNA testing has tended to break down along liberal-conservative lines. There is no good reason for this. Making sure that guilty people -- and not innocent ones -- are punished is the universally acknowledged goal of the criminal justice system. And providing some retroactive check, to the extent that science now permits it, ought to be an easy call, irrespective of one's politics. The interests of all sides -- convicts, prosecutors and the judicial system generally -- would be served by relatively routine DNA testing in situations where old, previously untested evidence could shed light on the accuracy of a conviction. Unfortunately, however, many conservatives have reflexively opposed reform efforts or have sought to make testing available only in the narrowest of circumstances. Some prosecutors, meanwhile, have fiercely resisted convicts' requests to test material. Neocon omitted this characteristic of conservatism in his recent essay on the subject, I believe.