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: Poet who wrote (17980)	7/21/2002 4:20:51 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It's very depressing. About human nature, really. This, concerning the proven superiority of sequential identification, is sick-making. (Note that Canada is being less irrational than we are in this regard; unless "rational" is defined in a covert and sinister way.) Wells said, "In general, the reaction before criminal-law audiences was 'Well, that's very interesting, but…'" Except for a few police departments, mainly in Canada, the reform remains un-adopted and unused. What's more shocking, a Department of Justice report that came out in 1999 admits that scientific evidence establishes that the sequential methods is better than the conventional lineup, but the report still says the department has no preference between the two methods. That disregard of a proven method to save the innocent from conviction and execution is almost insane. That attitude is so irrational as to be either inexplicable or a reflection of an utter lack of concern for clearing the innocent