5 ms·

Because it costs 1500$ perhaps?

vijayr 11y ago
It is better to spend that 1500 and make sure to send the right person to jail (even if it is redundant) than take a chance with eyewitness testimony. 1,500$ is nothing compared to the life and freedom of someone.
- facepalm 11y ago
  What if the rapist already confessed? 1500$ would buy a police officer a nice computer. In many countries the police lags far behind the criminals in technical equipment. Edit: hit HN's comment limit again. Anyway: consider this - what if the test isn't 100% reliable? What makes you think it is - because you want to believe that 100% truth can be established? What if it has a false negative rate of 30%, so 30% of actual rapists (who might already have confessed) would be cleared by the test?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > What if the rapist already confessed? Revealing innocents pressured into plea deals would have social value. Were you under the impression that innocent people never confess?
  - vijayr 11y ago
    IMHO, an individual's life and freedom is worth way more than any dollar amount, but that is just my opinion. That said: DNA tests are far more reliable than eyewitness accounts. Innocent people confess to crimes all the time.
mikeash 11y ago
I did explicitly mention cost savings in my comment.... You'll easily be spending 100x that much on the trial and imprisonment. Spending an extra 1% to get some hard physical evidence seems like cheap insurance.
- facepalm 11y ago
  Doesn't it depend on the circumstances? Sometimes the kit might not reveal any useful information. You assume because it is some sciency sounding thing it will give you 100% information, but what do you actually know about those kits? They might also just yield some likelihood or even false pointers. Why do you automatically assume the police chose to ignore important evidence? The article doesn't tell us anything about that.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    If they're not useful then don't collect them. There's no circumstance where it makes sense to collect them but not test them. I don't think this dichotomy rests on any assumptions about how they work or what information they give. I'm sure there are some circumstances where testing the kit is completely redundant. But how often does that happen? If it's rare, why bother carving out an exception?
    - facepalm 11y ago
      What makes you think it is rare? Maybe most of the time the rapists confess without the need to use the kit (maybe the existence of the kit is enough to make them confess, so no need to actually process it). And maybe collecting the information from the kits is just standard procedure, like photographing crime scenes, taking finger prints, and so on (all the stuff we see on TV).
      - mikeash 11y ago
        I'd be shocked if most rapists confessed. That would, as far as I know, make rape completely unique in the world of crime. Additionally, as another commenter mentioned, false confessions exist. I don't understand your "standard procedure" comment. Either collecting the kits is useful or it is not. If it is, then test them. If it is not, don't collect them. If collecting them is "standard procedure" then change the procedure.
        11y ago
Vraxx 11y ago
Seriously.. To agree with a sibling poster, $1500 is a paltry fee to pay to be sure that you imprison the right person. Especially since it isn't a trivial charge either. $1500 is also dwarfed by the amount it will cost to imprison the suspect for the duration of their sentence should they be convicted.
- facepalm 11y ago
  Maybe the kits don't really "make you sure". What do you know about them?

It is better to spend that 1500 and make sure to send the right person to jail (even if it is redundant) than take a chance with eyewitness testimony. 1,500$ is nothing compared to the life and freedom of someone.

facepalm 11y ago
What if the rapist already confessed? 1500$ would buy a police officer a nice computer. In many countries the police lags far behind the criminals in technical equipment. Edit: hit HN's comment limit again. Anyway: consider this - what if the test isn't 100% reliable? What makes you think it is - because you want to believe that 100% truth can be established? What if it has a false negative rate of 30%, so 30% of actual rapists (who might already have confessed) would be cleared by the test?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What if the rapist already confessed? Revealing innocents pressured into plea deals would have social value. Were you under the impression that innocent people never confess?
- vijayr 11y ago
  IMHO, an individual's life and freedom is worth way more than any dollar amount, but that is just my opinion. That said: DNA tests are far more reliable than eyewitness accounts. Innocent people confess to crimes all the time.

mikeash 11y ago

I did explicitly mention cost savings in my comment.... You'll easily be spending 100x that much on the trial and imprisonment. Spending an extra 1% to get some hard physical evidence seems like cheap insurance.

facepalm 11y ago
Doesn't it depend on the circumstances? Sometimes the kit might not reveal any useful information. You assume because it is some sciency sounding thing it will give you 100% information, but what do you actually know about those kits? They might also just yield some likelihood or even false pointers. Why do you automatically assume the police chose to ignore important evidence? The article doesn't tell us anything about that.
- mikeash 11y ago
  If they're not useful then don't collect them. There's no circumstance where it makes sense to collect them but not test them. I don't think this dichotomy rests on any assumptions about how they work or what information they give. I'm sure there are some circumstances where testing the kit is completely redundant. But how often does that happen? If it's rare, why bother carving out an exception?
  - facepalm 11y ago
    What makes you think it is rare? Maybe most of the time the rapists confess without the need to use the kit (maybe the existence of the kit is enough to make them confess, so no need to actually process it). And maybe collecting the information from the kits is just standard procedure, like photographing crime scenes, taking finger prints, and so on (all the stuff we see on TV).
    - mikeash 11y ago
      I'd be shocked if most rapists confessed. That would, as far as I know, make rape completely unique in the world of crime. Additionally, as another commenter mentioned, false confessions exist. I don't understand your "standard procedure" comment. Either collecting the kits is useful or it is not. If it is, then test them. If it is not, don't collect them. If collecting them is "standard procedure" then change the procedure.
      - 11y ago

Vraxx 11y ago

Seriously.. To agree with a sibling poster, $1500 is a paltry fee to pay to be sure that you imprison the right person. Especially since it isn't a trivial charge either. $1500 is also dwarfed by the amount it will cost to imprison the suspect for the duration of their sentence should they be convicted.

facepalm 11y ago
Maybe the kits don't really "make you sure". What do you know about them?