3 ms·

>Did you read the NYT article? Yes. Could you point to the specific part you feel is relevant?

• Alex3917 14y ago
  The whole premise of the article is that if the DNA matches, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty, and if the DNA doesn't match, the prosecutors argue that you're guilty anyway. If the results of a forensic 'test' show that you're guilty no matter what the outcome, that's pretty much the very definition of a sham. They might as well be using a truth-telling chicken.
  • shardling 14y ago
    That is not the picture the article actually paints.
    • Alex3917 14y ago
      "The unnamed-lover theory has been floated so often that defense lawyers have a derisive term for it: 'the unindicted co-­ejaculator.'"
      • shardling 14y ago
        It was also unsuccessful in a great many of those cases. Prosecutors don't determine whether you're guilty or not -- the issue isn't what they say, but whether juries believe them. The article was about how prosecutors are very unwilling to accept DNA evidence, not about systematic problems with its interpretation.
  • tedunangst 14y ago
    Do you think the prosecution will stop arguing that people are guilty if they stop DNA testing?