3 ms·
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 so
by 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.