3 ms·
>Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction. That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA ev
by tw04 7y ago
>Remember that the mere presence of DNA is not alone grounds for a conviction.
That's awful wishful thinking. The general public is of the opinion that DNA evidence is 100% accurate and the government does a great job of continuing to present that farce. I wouldn't want to be the person who has to face a jury of their peers in the face of DNA evidence saying I committed a crime. Regardless of my alibi... I wouldn't trust the lay person to understand or get it right.
- jellicle 7y agoI would love to see some test cases of that. Call in an unknowing jury by normal procedure, conduct an apparently-real trial, present evidence that a) DNA means X did it and also b) X has three friends who swear to an alibi. I'll bet X gets convicted.
- matz1 7y agoThen that is what need to be fixed. Either make DNA information more accurate or better inform the general public the current state of DNA evidence.
- inetknght 7y agoHow do you propose to do that?
- matz1 7y agoOtherwise you want to stop information ? You want to stop progress of technology ?
- colejohnson66 7y agoPeople have been harassed and even arrested for sharing how bogus a polygraph is (by showing how to beat it). Good luck convincing people DNA evidence isn’t 100% accurate.