Aaron1124
Regular Member
Chalk up another victory for the justice system.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration#
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration#
Aaron1124;1434147[COLOR="blue" said:]Chalk up another victory for the justice system[/COLOR].
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration#
Chalk up another victory for the justice system.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110103/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_exoneration#
You mean an example of an unjust system, possibly? I do not know the details of the case...the "accomplice" that was convicted with this man was arrested for rape prior to them being held on this charge and subsequent conviction, FWIU; makes a person wonder!
The lack of DNA evidence does not mean the person was not there, and was not culpable in the crime (example: if DNA was taken from a rape victim, but one of the men used a condom...there would likely only be the DNA of the person who did not cover-up). It appears that in some of these cases the DNA is just a portion of a case that had been handled negligently.
I read(e) that the man who was with the woman could not or did not identify in a photo line-up the man that has been exonerated.
If an innocent man was found guilty by our court system, is the system unjust? Is the conviction or process unjust? Was the ruling just, based on the information at the time, but unjust in that it convicted an innocent person? Can a just system convict people unjustly? Can an unjust system convict people justly? So many questions....
That's the difference between a "just system" and a "perfect system".
Because the fluid evidence collected by a vaginal swab contains more than just DNA. Ejaculate can indicate blood type, and whether the attacker was an "excreter".Why was a vaginal swab taken in 1979 when DNA profiling didn't start until the mid 80's?
Because the fluid evidence collected by a vaginal swab contains more than just DNA. Ejaculate can indicate blood type, and whether the attacker was an "excreter".
Apparently sarcasm isn't detected well through text.
You mean an example of an unjust system, possibly? I do not know the details of the case...the "accomplice" that was convicted with this man was arrested for rape prior to them being held on this charge and subsequent conviction, FWIU; makes a person wonder!
The lack of DNA evidence does not mean the person was not there, and was not culpable in the crime (example: if DNA was taken from a rape victim, but one of the men used a condom...there would likely only be the DNA of the person who did not cover-up). It appears that in some of these cases the DNA is just a portion of a case that had been handled negligently.
I read(e) that the man who was with the woman could not or did not identify in a photo line-up the man that has been exonerated.
If an innocent man was found guilty by our court system, is the system unjust? Is the conviction or process unjust? Was the ruling just, based on the information at the time, but unjust in that it convicted an innocent person? Can a just system convict people unjustly? Can an unjust system convict people justly? So many questions....
No our system is broken. No longer do I hear at all, from anyone in the system about how it is better to let a 100 guilty men go than try one innocent man. Something I strongly believe in, but for our "justice" system it's about points and conviction and winning the game. Unfortunately they are playing this game with peoples lives.
Sorry, my bad typo. Should have been "secretor".Excreter?
I am sorry, but I have been studying a lot (beginning of the quarter)...when I read(e) your response I thought, "they forgot...'to test for the gender of the perp'." DUH, I am so freaking tired!