Death Penalty

[Average Joe]

Good point though I would've thought obvious. As you say, DNA evidence isn't always available and the presence of DNA evidence doesn't always prove guilt.

Based on some of the posts here I would say it isn't obvious to everyone. DNA testing is seen by many as the magic bullet to solving crimes. It's probably the single biggest advancement in ciminology and it's clearly going to make things a lot more difficult for criminals but it isn't the all-in-one solution it's made out to be.

Some people have the impression that all the police have to do is walk in to a crime scene, test for DNA and *poof* the killer will be magically revealed.

First of all, in order to get a match you need a DNA sample to compare it to. In order to get that sample you have to have a suspect which you arrive at by using the other available evidence. If the killer knew the victim then the DNA present has to be proven to be from the crime itself. For example, what if the police suspect a friend of the victim and they find DNA evidence in the victim's home. They have to prove that the DNA was deposited during the commission of the crime and not simply as they visited the home of their friend.

DNA testing is just another tool, like fingerprints, that will help the police eliminate or confirm suspects. It does not solve the crime.

 

[Big Ben]

Good point AJ.


Many years ago fingerprints meant you where guilty. Now we supposedly know better with DNA, and assume just because we have a fingerprint it doesn't prove guilt or innocence. Many years from now we'll probably look at DNA and come to the same conclusion.

DNA does not prove guilt.

Sometimes I think the death penalty is just a tool used by politicians to please overzealous Americans.

 

[vidi vici veni]

DNA Evidence

I don't believe that anyone can deny that the science behind DNA evidence is sound. It truly is a wonderful advance for helping to determine guilt and innocence. Nonetheless, that science and its use has to be put in the context of all too fallible human institutions.

Human laziness, ignorance, or foolishness may cause quality control problems all along a line, beginning with the collection of evidence and ending with the analyzing of DNA samples. Certainly experts in the field are not unaware of these possible difficulties. See for example:

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/dna/conference/QualityAssurance01.asp

As well, of course, the meaning of the DNA sample would have to be correctly contextualized with respect to the particular criminal case being considered. Mistakes could be made here as well.

I do believe that DNA evidence greatly increases the chances of our correctly punishing the guilty and freeing the innocent. For me however, the remaining chance of error is still too great to put a person to death.

vvv

 

[Average Joe]

Re: DNA evidence.

AJ = red

For all those that have been saying that with DNA evidence it is possible to guarantee no innocent people would be convicted I would like to point out that not all murders have DNA evidence. For example, a drive by shooting would probably not have any DNA evidence.


I am still waiting for you to prove your assertion that DNA evidence can’t guarantee an innocent person would not be wrongly convicted.

Actually I was just trying to point out that not all murders have DNA evidence. This would mean that we would be talking about fewer than the total number of murders.

Some people have the impression that all the police have to do is walk in to a crime scene, test for DNA and *poof* the killer will be magically revealed.

I never implied anything of the sort. However, if the killer is known to the victim, and their DNA was left at the scene of the crime then that statement probably holds a great deal of truth to it. My claim was that once they have the DNA match then they have the killer dead to rights.

I never said you implied it. My comments were an open comment to anyone that thought that DNA evidence solved the problem of innocent people being executed.

First of all, in order to get a match you need a DNA sample to compare it to. In order to get that sample you have to have a suspect which you arrive at by using the other available evidence. If the killer knew the victim then the DNA present has to be proven to be from the crime itself.

You know that the police go to the crime scene first to collect evidence (including DNA evidence) before they start interrogating possible suspects and obtaining search warrants. If the murder was pseudo-random (i.e. a rape/murder) in it’s undertaking, then the police probably would not even know of the murderer at the time that the DNA evidence was being gathered. Even if the murderer, was known to the victim and therefore perhaps to the police, then you are still left trying to explain a conspiracy involving too many people, at too many levels (police + forensic scientists), and for what reason, and then how could so many professionals be so immoral.

BTW, the difference between DNA evidence and finger printing is time dating.

I don't believe I said that DNA testing and finger printing were the same or provided the same information to investigators. What I said was they are both tools that can be used by investigators but in and of itself does not solve the crime. What I was trying to get across was that DNA testing alone can not convict a person although it is a very convincing tool.

 

[vidi vici veni]

A matter of faith?

Picky:

Of course there are cases of murder where the identity of the killer is clear-cut. The problems arise with those cases that are murkier in nature. Does DNA evidence reduce some of the murk? Of course. To the extent that we would want to impose irrevocable penalties? Well, that's a judgment call and for many, references to DNA procedures or techniques will not decide it. That will be decided by how much faith you have in the relevant human institutions: the courts, the police, forensic scientists, etc. How much faith do you have in their abilities to correctly collect, analyse, and interpret such evidence?

In this matter, I don't want to be overly cynical, nor do I want to be pollyannaish. Neither of those positions is very appealing. While I think that those in the justice system do their best to arrive at the truth, I also believe that a lesson of history is to be somewhat skeptical of their handiwork.

I think it realistic to believe that miscarriages of justice will still occur, DNA evidence or no. So, I'm still taking a pass on the death penalty.

vvv

 

[Average Joe]

Re: DNA limitations.

AJ = Red

As I mentioned, evidence can be mishandled, planted or faked and honest mistakes can be made.

How can an abundance of semen and/or blood DNA be mishandled, planted or faked so that you have a false positive?

It could be accidentally swapped with evidence from a different case. Now that would mean that the person was still guilty but of a different crime. They could be found guilty of murder when all they really did was something like robbery.

Or an overtired lab technician could accidentally process the suspect's sample when he/she thought they were processing the crime scene sample. The report would then show that the crime scene sample matched the suspect's sample when it really didn't.

I would guess that for every scenerio I can imagine there are even more.

The reason O.J. got off was because his lawyers were able to make the overwhelming DNA evidence questionable. Why can't it be true that an over zealous prosecuter could succeed in making questionable DNA evidence look more legitimate? That's how my example could be transitive.

How was the DNA questionable? It could not have been planted because how would Marc Furhman get a hold of O.J’s blood. How can you explain away the cut on his hand, the shoe print, the gloves, and his strange disappearance? Johnny C. threw up a Hail Mary knowing that the African American jurors would want to strike back at the past injustices of the LAPD. O.J. Simpson was as guilty as sin and everyone in the courtroom knew it!

I didn't say the DNA was questionable. I said the defense made it look questionable by clouding the evidence with unrelated issues.

My point is that O.J.'s laywers were able to win in the face of overwhelming DNA evidence by raising just enough doubt to get him off then why can't it also be possible for a skilled prosecutor to be able to take circumstantial DNA evidence and convict an innocent person.

For example, a friend of mine has been shot and killed and they find my DNA at his place. It's my friend and I've been to his house recently so of course my DNA might be there. Now let's say that the police are under public pressure to find the killer so they charge me because they have DNA evidence. The prosecutor, under pressure as well, takes that DNA evidence and makes me look like a killer using the same method that O.J.'s lawyers did.

DNA evidence is only as good as the weakest link in the chain - people. DNA evidence is gathered by people, handled by people, processed by people, interpreted by people, presented by people and judged by people (the jury).

I think DNA evidence will make it easier to find those responsible but the systems around it are falable.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

It has always been my feeling that capital punishment is state murder, plain and simple. The whole idea is just completely distasteful and not very defensible from a moral and ethical standpoint.

The moral lesson implied in this "deterent" is, boiled down, play by the rules of society or die. This is Josef Stalin type logic here, people. Using threat of physical harm and death to achieve legal behaviour from one's citizenry is probably the most counter-ethical thing I've ever heard. Read "A Clockwork Orange" or even watch the movie for a good lesson on the importance of moral choice between good and evil. If the choice to do good is made under threat and duress, is it really "good"? Can we call ourselves a just and good society if this is how we intend to shape our moral choices?

IMHO "good" is only "good" if one freely has the option to do evil and chooses not to. Using state murder to deter one from doing evil severely muddies the waters of that decision, which in the end may result in one not doing evil but only out of fear of death, not a real moral sense. This may achieve the objective, but do the ends justify the means?

I understand this is a totally altruisitc and idealisitc position, but I think this is the way we need to move as a society, towards people doing good not out of fear of state retribution but out of a strong moral sensibility and respect for the needs of society as a whole.

I know, I know....keep dreaming buddy.....

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Another thing that really concerns me about the death penalty is the disproportionate ammount of african and hispanic americans currently on death row, or just serving time in state prisons.

To me, this indicates a larger problem than simply concluding that certain ethnic groups are more prone to criminal acts.

The ghettoization of the african american, and indeed many other ethnic groups, has been the single most damaging effect on their culture and prospects for rebuilding their pride and sense of worth in this society.

I read a study that indicated no matter where you were standing in the city of Compton or Watts, you were never more than 3 blocks from a liqour store and a gun shop where you could buy assault weapons and handguns with a drivers licence and no waiting period. Add to this the extreme poverty, the epidemic of drugs like crack and heroin and you have a recipie for disaster.

Then you add in factors like the company that manufactures the TEC-9 submachinegun. That weapon is extremely cheap, has a large ammo capacity and extreme rate of fire. It has also been banned in the US. But what does the manufacturer do? Changes a few parts, renames it and releases it all over again. This is a gang members weapon of choice and really serves no other practical purpose except murder. Yet this company is allowed to go on manufacturing the weapon and retailing it in poor neighborhoods all over the US. They are getting rich off of the murder of black youths and the drug trade. Yet this is somehow perfectly acceptable to us.

Then there is the drugs. How does so much get in to the US so easily? And how does it always manage to find it's way into poor neighborhoods? You could say simple supply and demand and I'd agree. But I think there is much more going on here. It is a proven fact that the CIA was long into trading arms for drugs with various factions all over the world. Where do you think those drugs ended up and continue to end up? Why do you think that interdiction of drug flights seems so ineffective, that it''s almost as if they want some of the shipments to get through?

I'm running out of space here, so I'll wrap it up like this and then throw on my asbestos suit:

It all comes down to a cycle of oppression, poverty and despair. In a culture where self-worth is often measured by the material and all benchmarks of success seem to be tied to your bank account and the "toys" you have at the end of the day, is it any wonder that we have the disposessed trying to get their piece by any means necessary. You sure can't afford those Nike shoes with a minumum wage job at the convenience store, if you can even find a job.

What has been created in the ghettos of america is an economic prison with a narco-death row. How do you get out when your family can't afford college? You can't get a job in your area that pays for shit, can't afford to move to a better area, can't afford a car to commute to a better job. You're fucked. And the ghetto becomes the moral equivalent of an Auschwitz or Dachau.

The worst part is nobody really cares. Unless the violence spills out into "nice" neighborhoods or a white person happens to get killed it's just another dead nigger or spic gang banger. Chalk it up to gang related homicide and file it under "Who Gives a Shit?"

Maybe it's too dramatic to call it a subtle form of genocide, but do the homework. Talk to people who have lived in these places. The hopelessness is absoloutely insane.

I'm certainly not trying to justify criminal behaviour, but I think people need a little insight into what causes these things and what the real story is. There are whole generations of ethnic people in america growing up without hope for a future. Is it any wonder they turn to crime, especially when it's made so suspiciously easy for them to do so?

Just my thoughts, playing devils advocate a bit here.....so flame on kids.....sorry for the verbose post.....

 

[vidi vici veni]

Picky's Proposal

Picky:

This is getting amusing. Perhaps your proposal should be expanded upon. Not just chess and a variant of 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' but a whole smorgasbord of events! Remember, there's a range of intellectual functions to be tested. Yes, I suggest adding:

Checkers - (Another check of spatial & memory functions.)
Chinese Checkers - (Can you pick up small ball & put in hole?)
Battleships - (But gotta have the sound effects: Ka-boom!)
Pick-Up Sticks - (Sharp ends removed for you guys.)
Scrabble - (No obscenties now!)
Strip Poker - (Ah, humiliation for the loser.)

That ought to round things off rather nicely! The winner is declared 'King of the World' and he gets to place a crown upon his own head. And no need to penalize a loser as doubtless he will commit suicide.

vvv

 

[vidi vici veni]

I must decline!

Sorry guys but you will have to find someone else to assist you with your contest. For professional and personal reasons, I need to maintain my incognito.

vvv

 

[Asterix]

Picky,

If you truly don't know how to play chess, and have given yourself three months to learn, I'd start tonight if I were you. This is roughly the equivalent of a novice trying to become proficient at golf in the same amount of time. How complex could it be, right?

Get yourself a good game program and pay attention to how you were beaten, it's the only way you can learn how to play. After many years of reasonable success playing in tournaments and with friends, I still manage to discover new ways to lose. Keeps it interesting anyway.

Sorry Ripped, no offense intended. I was just trying to help avoid unnecessary carnage. Maybe this way he can put up a good fight.

 

[Asterix]

Picky,

Glad to see you figured out that Ripped and I are not one and the same. This is exactly the kind of sound, logical reasoning you're going to need to win your bet. Best of luck.

P.S. Try not to jump to contusions. You might hurt yourself.

 

[vidi vici veni]

Huh?

Now a dinner rendezvous is being set up?! Geez, I hope this all doesn't end with a violent kiss.

vvv

 

[Hepcat]

Now it's not my intention to be a killjoy and interrupt this lovefest between Ripped and Picky, but I somehow feel compelled to address some of the statements made by Dr. Gonzo in his post a few pages back. You still here Gonzo?

"How do you get out when your family can't afford college?"

Since when is a college education a prerequisite to material success? Granted sometimes it may help but.... And state colleges in the U.S.A. are not so expensive that it is impossible for kids (even white ones) to pay for their own education without the assistance of their parents. Scholarships for the academically gifted help. And speaking of scholarships,

"...do the homework."

Precisely! How many of the cons of which you speak actually did their homework and took advantage of the opportunity to get an education in the public school system? Granted, being a good student may not be cool but being able to read does help you "get ahead".

"In a culture where self-worth is often measured by the material and all benchmarks of success seem to be tied to your bank account and the "toys" you have at the end of the day, is it any wonder that we have the disposessed trying to get their piece by any means necessary.You sure can't afford those Nike shoes with a minumum wage job at the convenience store..."

So who is it that forces you to buy into this mass consumer culture anyway? The answer? It's the black role models that virtually every ghetto dweller seeks to emulate, the athletes, the rappers, etc. No, it's not the black doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on! Once again, not cool!

And it's the ghetto culture of instant gratification, the "I want it all right now" culture, that breeds the crime! None of this scrimping and saving to build a better life for our kids, none of this first and foremost make sure the kids get an education, none of this European immigrant work-ethic that my parents had!

Have you ever heard of the concept of individual responsibility? It means blaming society is a copout. You and you alone are fully responsible for your own actions!