• SeanRenaud said on Jul 20, 2008....

  The fact is that we'll never know on any case that wasn't captured on video.  It's a matter of if there is enough evidence that we can trust.
   
  I still think that life w/o parole is worse.  It's still a death sentence AND since you don't get as many appeals it's actually an easier way to put an innocent away and never have to deal with them again.

• destinydiva said on Jul 20, 2008....

  interesting... 
  
  you know, I dont agree with the death penalty...   because it only fears those who fear death...  I would thank any executioner for putting me out of my misery!!  (I'm hormonal today :-) 
  but seriously...  I can imagine if you were catholic or might religious.  then you'dbe scared you were going to hell...   but if your just normal and your life is having a temporary shit moment anyway...  then ....  hmm I had a point then!! lol ....its forgotton...  (note to self..dont blog when hormonal and been drinking wine)  :-)
  
  
  anyways!!  yeah thats an important bit too...   if your innocent!!!!!   :-) xx
  
  
  
  

• curmudgeon said on Jul 20, 2008....

  The article seems to focus on cases in which DNA taken from database searches results in a lead when there's no other evidence. If the capital standard were say, DNA, Witnesses, and other physical evidence, perhaps this will reduce the chances that an innocent person is executed. I'm on the fence about capital punishment myself.

  If, as a conservative, I believe in small or limited government, then I surely disagree with the State having the ability to take my life. But then I think about the victim of the crime. What form does justice take for the victim or the family of the victim? The lifer will still be able to communicate with his or her family, continue to run his gang (if he is a gang leader) out of his cell, and maybe even receive a pardon or be released if enough time goes by. Is that justice for the one who is lost?

  This one isn't so clear cut to me.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 20, 2008....

  Thinking about the victim is pointless.  It's really not about them as individuals it's about society as a whole.  It's ultimately about wether or not you feel that for taking a life you should be granted a free ride (however violent) throughout the rest of you're life. 

• beyondtheveil said on Jul 20, 2008....

  bloc- I have heard statistics on the reliability of dna for quite some time now and have never heard of anything even remotely close to 1-3. What I usually hear is millions or tens of millions to one. If dna is so degraded over time that the probabilities drop to hundreds or even a few thousand to one, it should be disregarded. By the way, there are also people in the population who can render different genetic profiles from one test to the other. 

• bloc said on Jul 20, 2008....

  @curm
  "If the capital standard were say, DNA, Witnesses, and other physical evidence, perhaps this will reduce the chances that an innocent person is executed. "
  
  
  It will reduce it, but it won't eliminate it which is one of my big problems with the death penalty. I think that life without parole keeps us equally safe, and provides a certain level of justice for the victims. I'm with you in not feeling comfortable giving the state so much power (the state has lied about evidence numerous times in our history).
  
  
  I saw another story that I thought you'd find interesting, and I was going to blog about it but I never got around to it. A court recently ruled that Bush does have the power to detain "enemy combatants" without charges AND they went out of their way to say that this probably applies to american citizens as well. Here is the story. I'm going to do a blog post on it now.
  
  
  @beyond
  "What I usually hear is millions or tens of millions to one"
  
  
  I'm guessing you didn't read the article, but glanced at it ;) In the article they talk about this. The chance that a dna profile matches a single random person is the big millions to one you're talking about. But, if they take a dna profile and compare it to many thousands or millions of random people then the chance of a false positive becomes significant. 

• Actorguy said on Jul 21, 2008....

  This doesn't speak to the value of DNA evidence, but rather to a classic mis-understanding of statistics.  Any statistician could have told them from the get-go that "cold hit" matches are fairly useless.  With chances of 1 in a million, the population of the US contains 200-300 matches.  If one of those is in a DNA database, then he is going to match a "cold hit".  Not really evidence of anything.
   
  If, however, you have evidence against someone and THEN his DNA matches, the odds of his being guilty become astronomical.

• bloc said on Jul 21, 2008....

  "If, however, you have evidence against someone and THEN his DNA matches, the odds of his being guilty become astronomical"
  
  
  Yes and no. We've had experts lie about DNA evidence in the past, and we have also had labs that had faulty or uncalibrated equipment give bad results. 

• -ocean- said on Jul 21, 2008....

  this is an interesting blog, personally, dna or no dna, death penalty shouldn't be, it's the easy way out, hard manual labour is much better and at least it can make people with consciences sleep better at night knowing some innocent person hasnt just been murdered due to the system.

  DNA may not be conclusive indeed, but it is definately helpful in putting a picture together, but we never shall see the full picture

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 21, 2008....

  Instead they've been enslaved by the system and live out the rest of their lives enduring incredible violence.  That should let citizens sleep better.  I didn't kill Billy, he just gets man raped by Bubba nightly!
   
   

Comment on "DNA evidence not as strong as many think"

Currently tagged	politics dna evidence DNA death sentance (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment