Mike, In a previous post you indicated you had gone to law school.
Could you tell me why (or at least give me your opinion as to why) DNA evidence seems to be treated as some kind of super-evidence in our judicial system? I thought there were only two types of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Why would DNA evidence be treated differently as some other kind of direct evidence, such as eye-witness testimony or fingerprints? Also, why are so many prisoners' convictions being overturned because of new DNA evidence? For example, if someone was convicted of murder, and a hair or skin or blood or semen sample taken from the victim shows DNA that is not the same as the one convicted, why does that AUTOMATICALLY overturn the verdict? The convicted could have still killed the victim and the DNA might have come from someone else also involved. It just seems like DNA is used like a trump card in our judicial system instead of just another piece of evidence to consider. Thanks.Bill! __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5560 (20101024) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: zen_forum-dig...@yahoogroups.com zen_forum-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: zen_forum-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
