Bill,

The scenarios you present are so radically different that it makes me think I'm 
missing some finer, subtler point - but for the life of me I can't find it! A 
jury will take into consideration the standards/accepted know.ledge of the 
time when they make a decision. Ask someone today whether they would rather 
have 
anti-biotics or be bled by leeches and I think you'll know which way they'll 
decide *even tho* they aren't qualified doctors. Also, if the defence could 
bring in credible opposition to DNA then it would be done (I'd LOVE to see a 
creationist take the stand to argue against science!). I think I have a rough 
idea as to what you're driving at (faith) but these days we tend to accept 
scientific evidence as being tested (and peer-reviewed) to such a highly 
predictable degree as to be the closet thing to 'truth' as can be objectively 
judged/trusted. Hope that answers your question somewhat (considering I never 
got past 'sums' in high school science classes).

Mike  




________________________________
From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 26 October, 2010 19:41:01
Subject: RE: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike

  
Mike,

What is the difference between these two scenarios?

1. TODAY: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial by jury. 
Semen is found in the body of the woman. DNA is extracted from the accused and 
from the semen. A DNA expert comes into court and testifies that the samples 
are 
a match. The jury believes the DNA expert and convicts the accused.

2. 300 YEARS AGO: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial 
by 
jury. A priest comes into court and testifies that he cut open a cat and saw in 
the entrails that the man was guilty. The jury believes the priest and convicts 
the accused.

And before you answer, do you really believe the members of each of these 
juries 
knows enough themselves about DNA or cat entrails to make a decision on 
anything 
else than just the testimony of the expert witness?

...Bill!

From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 
mike brown
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:29 PM
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike

Bill!,

Forensic evidence is a specialised area for criminal lawyers so I'll tread 
carefully on this subject. Firstly, each case turns on its own facts so you'd 
have to go through each situation (regarding dna) case by case. Secondly, I 
don't think it's correct to say that any ruling is automatically over-turned 
because of dna evidence. True, there have been situations where a person has 
been exonerated, but you're correct to say that this doesn't prove the person 
is 
innocent. But this is just as true as when there is insufficent evidence to 
convict someone, but this doesn't equate to their innocence either. 


My opinion is that new advances in science are just as applicable in the court 
room setting as they are anywhere else. If you were wrongly convicted of rape 
15 
years ago primarily because a rapists mask was found in your possession, I'm 
thinking you'd be pretty happy when dna testing on the perspiration inside the 
mask didn't match your own. Even things like the saliva on the back of a stamp 
can go on to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) who did or didn't send that 
stalking/threatening/murder letter. In my experience, most criminals are pretty 
dumb so dna evidence is much more likely to convict the guilty than release 
them 
and more likely to protect the innocent rather than convict them. Nothing is 
100% failsafe tho.

Mike 
________________________________________
From: "billsm...@hhs1963.org" <billsm...@hhs1963.org>
To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 25 October, 2010 13:15:08
Subject: [Zen] Non-zen Question for Mike

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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5562 (20101025) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5562 (20101025) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5563 (20101026) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature 
database 5563 (20101026) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com






      

Reply via email to