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: jcky who wrote (8056)	4/10/2002 9:37:02 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't view this issue as a right of prisoners, but rather, a duty of society. I agree with that. Sometimes we come upon an matter where there is so obviously a right path that one wonders where the arguments come from. It is critically important to who we are that we maintain a legal system in which we have confidence. We can't do that when we cover up it potential flaws. This situation reminds me of the Catholic Church and its pedophiles. Gotta let the fresh air in sooner or later. Postponing that only makes things worse.

To: jcky who wrote (8056)	4/10/2002 10:24:02 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (3) \| 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). Do you really think it would be that simple? If a person was convicted of rape in the days before DNA was available, there must have been a body of evidence to support the jury's decision. If a new test showed a non-matching DNA sample, would that alone prove innocence? It would seem to be powerful exculpatory evidence, but wouldn't it have to be considered in the context of the other evidence? Wouldn't there have to be testimony about the victim's sexual activity around the time of the rape that might account for the presence of other DNA? To put this in reverse, it seems unlikely that a matching DNA sample would ever be enough for a conviction just by itself, without any other supporting evidence ... as we certainly learned with O. J. Simpson. It would seem to me that a new trial would have to take place. This could prove very difficult if cases are very old, witnesses are no longer available, and so on. Justice cuts both ways, and I don't think it is simple at all to figure out how new DNA technology could be fairly incorporated into old cases to determine truth.