3 ms·

What I found weird while reading this article was that they all said the results would be "nominal" and nothing will realistically change regardless of if the D

by veb 11y ago

What I found weird while reading this article was that they all said the results would be "nominal" and nothing will realistically change regardless of if the DNA tests were actually erroneous. Uhhhh what? If people were sentenced for a crime based on the fact that their DNA matched with the DNA found at the scene of the crime they supposedly committed, then surely there's a massive problem here? Just one case of this would mean an innocent person has been rotting away in prison for the last decade... and it won't just be one case! I'm confused as to why they're not thinking this is a big deal. You're completely correct when you say the public was made to believe DNA testing was completely foolproof. If you're in court, being prosecuted and they prosecution says that the DNA matches yours everyone instantly thinks you are in fact guilty. If you've got a jury they'd all think the same too. I thnk this is a really big deal, but I'm not in the US so I may be missing something (again). :-)

tbrake 11y ago
> If people were sentenced for a crime based on the fact that their DNA matched with the DNA found at the scene of the crime they supposedly committed, then surely there's a massive problem here? I get the impression - though I don't have the data/numbers obviously - that in almost all of those cases the DNA evidence was being used as the cherry on top of the evidence sundae they had already compiled. That's why it won't realistically change much; either very few or none at all are convicted _only_ because their dna happened to be found at a crime scene.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bilbo0s 11y ago
  "... in almost all of those cases the DNA evidence was being used as the cherry on top of the evidence sundae they had already compiled..." Not to put too fine a point on it... but that's the whole problem DNA was supposed to solve. Cases like rape X, where all of the evidence pointed to guy A. Then we test a known serial rapist, guy B, 30 years later to find out that he actually committed rape X. The Innocence Project sails in, and in due course guy A is exonerated and sent on his way after having spent 31 years in prison. We're stuck with a sizable financial liability to the ex-prisoner. And for some reason, everyone calls this a happy ending ??? DNA was supposed to protect us from situations like that. But now you say that the evidence against guy A in rape X really would have been enough in any case... so we shouldn't read too much into the fact that the DNA samples don't match ??? I'm just confused as to what evidence would EVER prove guy A's innocence in such a system ???
  - tbrake 11y ago
    I was responding to a specific interpretation of OP's post which, upon reflection, might not have been the best reading. In short: are people convicted based solely on the presence of their DNA at a scene. The way I read it was if it was being used in a frivolous manner, e.g. "There was a murder in Times Square last night. We found a hair of yours in Times Square. Case closed." Obviously there are more serious uses, and clearly a spectrum exists of how important the evidence is in the case. If, in the cases spoken of in the article, DNA evidence was used as the strongest piece of evidence to get a conviction, then obviously that matters. I didn't mean to imply it didn't. But if, in the cases spoken of in the article, the DNA evidence was incidental to a lot of other evidence - note this was the scenario I was responding to - and not necessarily enough to convict on its own, and more of the "cherry on top", then I agree with them that it might not change much in the way of these cases. We won't know what percentage fit either description until they've gone through them.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > The way I read it was if it was being used in a frivolous manner, e.g. "There was a murder in Times Square last night. We found a hair of yours in Times Square. Case closed." There will always be more evidence than that. You can find circumstantial "evidence" of anything. If you were friends with the victim then "the defendant knew the victim." If you were enemies or competitors then you had motive. If you had never met the victim but the victim was robbed then you had motive again, and the same if you ever expressed opposition to any class of activity the victim had ever engaged in. If you were caught on surveillance near where the crime was committed then it will be used against you, but if you were at home sleeping then you have no alibi. And so it goes. A prosecutor can whittle the world of facts about your life down to only the ones that imply you might have committed the crime. None of that stuff actually proves anything -- but it sure makes a good show for the jury. Throw fraudulent DNA evidence on top of it and the outcome is predictable.
- rhizome 11y ago
  The problem lies where the "cherry on top" is that which causes the jury to eliminate the shadow of a doubt. In that way, maybe it's not so much a "cherry on top," as a "linchpin," or "keystone."

by veb 11y ago

tbrake 11y ago

> If people were sentenced for a crime based on the fact that their DNA matched with the DNA found at the scene of the crime they supposedly committed, then surely there's a massive problem here? I get the impression - though I don't have the data/numbers obviously - that in almost all of those cases the DNA evidence was being used as the cherry on top of the evidence sundae they had already compiled. That's why it won't realistically change much; either very few or none at all are convicted _only_ because their dna happened to be found at a crime scene.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bilbo0s 11y ago
"... in almost all of those cases the DNA evidence was being used as the cherry on top of the evidence sundae they had already compiled..." Not to put too fine a point on it... but that's the whole problem DNA was supposed to solve. Cases like rape X, where all of the evidence pointed to guy A. Then we test a known serial rapist, guy B, 30 years later to find out that he actually committed rape X. The Innocence Project sails in, and in due course guy A is exonerated and sent on his way after having spent 31 years in prison. We're stuck with a sizable financial liability to the ex-prisoner. And for some reason, everyone calls this a happy ending ??? DNA was supposed to protect us from situations like that. But now you say that the evidence against guy A in rape X really would have been enough in any case... so we shouldn't read too much into the fact that the DNA samples don't match ??? I'm just confused as to what evidence would EVER prove guy A's innocence in such a system ???
- tbrake 11y ago
  I was responding to a specific interpretation of OP's post which, upon reflection, might not have been the best reading. In short: are people convicted based solely on the presence of their DNA at a scene. The way I read it was if it was being used in a frivolous manner, e.g. "There was a murder in Times Square last night. We found a hair of yours in Times Square. Case closed." Obviously there are more serious uses, and clearly a spectrum exists of how important the evidence is in the case. If, in the cases spoken of in the article, DNA evidence was used as the strongest piece of evidence to get a conviction, then obviously that matters. I didn't mean to imply it didn't. But if, in the cases spoken of in the article, the DNA evidence was incidental to a lot of other evidence - note this was the scenario I was responding to - and not necessarily enough to convict on its own, and more of the "cherry on top", then I agree with them that it might not change much in the way of these cases. We won't know what percentage fit either description until they've gone through them.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > The way I read it was if it was being used in a frivolous manner, e.g. "There was a murder in Times Square last night. We found a hair of yours in Times Square. Case closed." There will always be more evidence than that. You can find circumstantial "evidence" of anything. If you were friends with the victim then "the defendant knew the victim." If you were enemies or competitors then you had motive. If you had never met the victim but the victim was robbed then you had motive again, and the same if you ever expressed opposition to any class of activity the victim had ever engaged in. If you were caught on surveillance near where the crime was committed then it will be used against you, but if you were at home sleeping then you have no alibi. And so it goes. A prosecutor can whittle the world of facts about your life down to only the ones that imply you might have committed the crime. None of that stuff actually proves anything -- but it sure makes a good show for the jury. Throw fraudulent DNA evidence on top of it and the outcome is predictable.
rhizome 11y ago
The problem lies where the "cherry on top" is that which causes the jury to eliminate the shadow of a doubt. In that way, maybe it's not so much a "cherry on top," as a "linchpin," or "keystone."