PDA

View Full Version : Should DNA testing....


DenverChief
04-14-2005, 09:29 PM
Be performed on all persons convicted of murder and rape the past 25 years? To guarantee the state convicted the right person? Should the states be forced to test DNA of prisoners already executed to guarantee they got te right person and bring clousre to both the victims family and the accused family? While pondering these questions take the time to consider these cases

#1.

Roy Wayne Criner was convicted and sentenced to 99 years in prison for the rape of a 16-year-old girl who was found beaten and stabbed to death in a secluded area in Montgomery County, Texas, on September 27, 1986.

The victim, Deanna Ogg, died of blunt trauma to her head and stab wounds to her neck. Criner was charged with both rape and murder based entirely on statements he supposedly made to three acquaintances shortly after the body was found. These witnesses claimed that Criner had told them he “had to get rough with” a female hitchhiker with whom he had sex. The statements were vague and included no reference to a murder, and there was no other evidence linking Criner to the crime. As a result, the prosecution dismissed the murder charge before Criner finally was brought to trial four years after the crime before District Judge John C. Martin and a jury.

The evidence

At the trial, the three acquaintance witnesses testified, but on cross examination their accounts were shown to be inconsistent with each other, with the known facts of the crime, and with their prior statements. The only other major prosecution witness was a state forensic serologist, Maurita Howarth, who testified that tests eliminated Criner as the source of loose hairs recovered from the crime scene and that tests on semen samples recovered from the victim were inconclusive. The defense presented seemingly credible alibi witnesses who placed Criner at work at the time of the crime. But the jury found him guilty.

DNA implicates “unindicted co-ejaculator”

In 1997, DNA testing established that Criner definitely was not the source of the semen recovered from the victim. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to grant a new trial. In an unpublished decision in 1998, the court accepted the prosecution argument that there could have been what defense lawyers sometimes jokingly call an “unindicted co-ejaculator.” That is, the semen could have come from someone with whom Ogg had consensual sex before Criner raped her — and Criner might have used a condom or failed to ejaculate. Thus, in the eyes of the highest court in Texas, the DNA was insufficient to warrant a new trial, given that there was, in the court’s words, “overwhelming direct evidence” of Criner’s guilt.


#2
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Hours after getting married, a death row
inmate whose cause was championed by the pope, Mother Teresa and
the Italian government was executed Wednesday for a 1985 rape and
murder he said he didn't commit.
Joseph Roger O'Dell III, 54, died by injection at 9:16 p.m.
after the Supreme Court rejected his last-minute appeal.

Earlier in the day, Gov. George Allen rejected a plea for
clemency, and a federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to order
newer, more sophisticated DNA tests of semen taken from the victim.
O'Dell's lawyers had argued that the tests could prove him innocent
in the slaying of Helen Schartner.

At O'Dell's trial, prosecutors showed that the wounds on Mrs.
Schartner's head matched the shape of a pellet gun owned by O'Dell.
Tire tracks from the crime scene matched O'Dell's car. Semen on the
victim's body matched O'Dell's blood and enzyme types. And hairs in
O'Dell's car matched those of the victim.

In an argument to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, O'Dell's
attorneys asked that the execution be stopped because of O'Dell's
claim that another man, David Mark Pruett, killed Mrs. Schartner.
But state Attorney General Richard Cullen said Pruett couldn't
have done it because his blood type was AB. O'Dell has type A
blood, and semen taken from the victim contained type A blood,
Cullen said.

#3

On March 12, 1981, a 26-year-old white female nurse was walking along a road near Houma, La., looking for help after her car broke down when she was accosted and raped by a black man. He grabbed her by the neck and dragged her from the road to the side of some buildings. He punched her in the face, bit her, and ordered her to take off her pants, stockings, and underwear. He raped her and repeatedly choked her and hit her head with a pipe. After the rape, she ran away and was picked up by a police officer, who took her to Terrebonne General Hospital and then went to look for the perpetrator.


At the time, Clyde Charles, a black 27-year-old shrimp fisherman, was leaving a bar in Houma, La., where he had been with his brother Marlo. The police officer spotted Clyde, whom he had seen hitchhiking just an hour before the rape and had ordered off the road. He picked up Clyde and brought him to the hospital where the victim identified him as her assailant.


Clyde was tried by an all-white jury of 10 women and two men. The prosecution's evidence included the victim's identification and her testimony that the rapist called himself "Clyde." A criminalist testified that two Caucasian hairs on Clyde's shirt were microscopically similar (but not conclusively identical) to hair from the victim's head. The police officer testified that Clyde had been wearing a dark jogging jacket with white stripes when he saw him outside the bar, corroborating the victim's description of her assailant's dark jogging suit with stripes. The officer also testified that Clyde had been wearing a red cap and blue jacket tied around his neck when he saw him hitchhiking. A red baseball hat and blue jean jacket were found near the scene of the rape.


On June 22, 1982, the jury found Clyde guilty of aggravated rape. He was sentenced to life in prison at Louisiana's state penitentiary at Angola.


Clyde appealed his case twice, in 1982 and 1987, and lost. Then in 1990, when he learned about DNA evidence, he and his sisters Lois Hill and Rochelle Abrams began writing letters requesting a test of the evidence in his case. For years, their requests were ignored, blocked, or denied by state and federal officials. Charles and his family kept writing, however, and eventually The Innocence Project took his case.

The state, under tremendous pressure from The Innocence Project and with media attention from FRONTLINE, finally granted Clyde post-conviction DNA testing in May 1999. The results of the test eliminated him as the perpetrator of the crime, and he was released on Dec. 17, 1999. Four months later, his brother Marlo was arrested after DNA tests implicated him in the rape of the nurse.

#4

After 18 years in Virginia prisons -- nine and a half of those years on death row -- Earl Washington Jr. is free at last.


Earl’s victory against one of the nation’s biggest death penalty states made national news because it marks still another example of how brutally the odds have been stacked against people facing the death penalty.


Earl’s story is shocking. He is a Black man with an IQ of 69 who was convicted of the 1982 rape and murder of a white woman. He didn’t know the first detail about the crime: the race of the victim, the location of the scene or whether witnesses were present. But the cops forced him to admit that he did it, and this "confession" was enough to send him to death row.


By 1994, Washington’s new attorneys had DNA evidence showing that he wasn’t guilty. But in Virginia, you have only 21 days after sentencing to present new evidence of innocence -- even if it can save your life.


The 21-day rule is a cruel joke. Its purpose is to make executions happen faster. Earl is alive today only because of years of work by anti-death penalty activists.


Days before his death date, Earl’s only option was to petition for clemency. It was clear that Earl was innocent but was going to be killed anyway -- and Gov. Douglas Wilder was forced to commute Earl’s sentence to life in prison.


Pressure from attorneys and activists forced the state to permit Earl more sophisticated DNA testing. Last year, once again, Earl showed that he was not guilty. Even though he won a full pardon, it took months for the state to release him.


Why wouldn’t they let him go? What happened to Earl Washington gives us a good look at a broken system that feeds on injustice and corruption. We need to keep fighting for a national moratorium and for an end to the racist death penalty.


>>>...>>>>

So the question becomes should this be a federal right or gurantee that DNA testing be done or required to convict someone of a crime that oculd take their life? Discuss I'm interested to hear some debate on DNA testing

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 09:33 PM
Even with the names you listed, the percentage is obscenely low.

No, the taxpayers should not be unnecessarily burdened. I wouldn't mind cases reviewed for the possibility and have the testing when the testing would be sufficient and the evidence overwhelming to decide to use the tests, but I would venture to state that 90% of the cases would be a waste of taxpayers dollars.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 09:34 PM
I don't think they taxpayers should foot the bill.

However, with that said, the state should not be allowed to stand in the way if the accused can raise the funds to do the DNA test themselves.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:38 PM
I think DNA testing should be done on all rape and murder cases, a rapist may get released and having his dna on file would help to solve a case much faster if he committed rape again once released.

I also think everyone who is now sitting on death row should have dna testing done, I read a couple of years back in a People magazine where at that date 79 people had been found innocent who had been on death row for years for a crime they did not committ.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:39 PM
Even with the names you listed, the percentage is obscenely low.

No, the taxpayers should not be unnecessarily burdened. I wouldn't mind cases reviewed for the possibility and have the testing when the testing would be sufficient and the evidence overwhelming to decide to use the tests, but I would venture to state that 90% of the cases would be a waste of taxpayers dollars.
I don't feel it would be a waste of my tax dollars if it helped to free someone who is innocent.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 09:43 PM
Even with the names you listed, the percentage is obscenely low.

No, the taxpayers should not be unnecessarily burdened. I wouldn't mind cases reviewed for the possibility and have the testing when the testing would be sufficient and the evidence overwhelming to decide to use the tests, but I would venture to state that 90% of the cases would be a waste of taxpayers dollars.


you are actually incorrect the percentage is much higher

1979-2003 Clemency Grants based upon doubts about guilt
Learie Leo Alford
Jesse Rutledge
Doris Ann Foster
Ronald Monroe
Joseph Giarratano
Herbert Bassette
Anson Avery Maynard
Joseph Payne
Donald Paradis
Henry Lee Lucas
Phillip Dewitt Smith
Aaron Patterson
Madison Hobley
Leroy Orange
Stanley Howard
Jerome Campbell

this list does not include those exhonorated by the courts

Chiefnj
04-14-2005, 09:45 PM
Yes.

It's okay to spend billions to liberate people in Iraq, but not okay to spend a fraction of that amount in an attempt to liberate wrongly incarcerated persons in the United States. That's F'd up.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 09:45 PM
I don't feel it would be a waste of my tax dollars if it helped to free someone who is innocent.

I agree...I think that the TRUTH is the most important aspect of this and if the truth means you are guilty then so be it but if it means you are innocent it is the least the state can do is to spend $3500 after I spent 5,10,15,20 years in prison

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:48 PM
I agree...I think that the TRUTH is the most important aspect of this and if the truth means you are guilty then so be it but if it means you are innocent it is the least the state can do is to spend $3500 after I spent 5,10,15,20 years in prison
yep, taxpayer dollars are spent everyday on stupid stuff, to free an innocent man that the state paid tax dollars on a lawyer for and ends up giving years of his life which can never be replaced is the least we could do.
I've never heard, but has anyone that has been freed get any money at all, cause you know after being locked up for possible 10 years or more, it would be difficult to go out and get a job.

elvomito
04-14-2005, 09:49 PM
better to let 10 guilty men go than to convict one innocent

elvomito
04-14-2005, 09:50 PM
...I've never heard, but has anyone that has been freed get any money at all, cause you know after being locked up for possible 10 years or more, it would be difficult to go out and get a job.

they get paid nicely

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:51 PM
better to let 10 guilty men go than to convict one innocent
its not alright to let 10 guilty men go, DNA would prove their guilt as well as their innocent.
Thats a redicilous statement.

Inspector
04-14-2005, 09:51 PM
Sometimes I wonder if prosecutors are actually more concerned with winning and jailing somebody - anybody they can - for whatever the crime is.

Seems like it's more about winning the case (that helps them further their career and earnings) than it is about putting guilty people behind bars.

DNA testing might prove someone innocent and thus prove a prosecutor wrong. The prosecutor may consider that to be a bad thing - for the prosecutor.

And maybe that's just my perception, but it just sort of seems that way to me.

elvomito
04-14-2005, 09:53 PM
its not alright to let 10 guilty men go, DNA would prove their guilt as well as their innocent.
Thats a redicilous statement.
in general, it is much worse to wrongfully convict one man than for 10 murderers to get off.

dna testing would help to right some wrongs and prevent things like that

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:54 PM
Sometimes I wonder if prosecutors are actually more concerned with winning and jailing somebody - anybody they can - for whatever the crime is.

Seems like it's more about winning the case (that helps them further their career and earnings) than it is about putting guilty people behind bars.

DNA testing might prove someone innocent and thus prove a prosecutor wrong. The prosecutor may consider that to be a bad thing - for the prosecutor.

And maybe that's just my perception, but it just sort of seems that way to me.
yes I agree, and my guess would be thats why its so hard for some of these people to get a new trial, the justice system doesn't want to admit they fugged up and took years from a persons life.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 09:54 PM
Yes.

It's okay to spend billions to liberate people in Iraq, but not okay to spend a fraction of that amount in an attempt to liberate wrongly incarcerated persons in the United States. That's F'd up. :thumb: although I don't want this to turn political:)

badgirl
04-14-2005, 09:54 PM
in general, it is much worse to wrongfully convict one man than for 10 murderers to get off.

dna testing would help to right some wrongs and prevent things like that
yea, thats kinda what I was trying to say, DNA would serve both ways. :thumb:

elvomito
04-14-2005, 09:57 PM
hehe "both ways"

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 09:58 PM
I don't feel it would be a waste of my tax dollars if it helped to free someone who is innocent.
You would think it would be worth paying thousands of dollars for each of 600,000 convicts to free 79?

Do you also believe it is worth testing every drop of water in the ocean to find 100 drops of fresh water?



Hmm, while looking I found an interesting statistic direct from the Bureau of Justice. While many of you, including the author of this thread, state the prisons are being overrun with drug offenders and violent criminals are getting out, it is obvious you are wrong. Drug offenders in prison have risen about 200,000 over the last 25 years while violent criminals have increased by more than 400,000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.gif

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 09:59 PM
you are actually incorrect the percentage is much higher

1979-2003 Clemency Grants based upon doubts about guilt
Learie Leo Alford
Jesse Rutledge
Doris Ann Foster
Ronald Monroe
Joseph Giarratano
Herbert Bassette
Anson Avery Maynard
Joseph Payne
Donald Paradis
Henry Lee Lucas
Phillip Dewitt Smith
Aaron Patterson
Madison Hobley
Leroy Orange
Stanley Howard
Jerome Campbell

this list does not include those exhonorated by the courts

Give me a full list and take that number as the numerator to 600,000 as the denominator. The fraction is still ridiculously small.

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:00 PM
they get paid nicely
No, they don't. The state is not liable for lawsuit.

|Zach|
04-14-2005, 10:00 PM
yea, thats kinda what I was trying to say, DNA would serve both ways. :thumb:
If you have not been served up enough DNA just tell Stumpy.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:03 PM
You would think it would be worth paying thousands of dollars for each of 600,000 convicts to free 79?

Do you also believe it is worth testing every drop of water in the ocean to find 100 drops of fresh water?



Hmm, while looking I found an interesting statistic direct from the Bureau of Justice. While many of you, including the author of this thread, state the prisons are being overrun with drug offenders and violent criminals are getting out, it is obvious you are wrong. Drug offenders in prison have risen about 200,000 over the last 25 years while violent criminals have increased by more than 400,000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.gif
no cause that would be redicilous, taking a innocent mans life is something totally different, and if it were you or your family member that you knew was innocent you'd feel different

Tax payers are paying for mothers who have 2 or 3 kids and no husband and who are too lazy to work, we are paying for them to help raise their kids, but its not ok to help give a person their life back? How much do you think we spend each year on welfare, foodstamps, and insurance and schooling for people who is too damn lazy to get a job, I don't know how much but I bet you could do a lot of DNA testing.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:03 PM
yep, taxpayer dollars are spent everyday on stupid stuff, to free an innocent man that the state paid tax dollars on a lawyer for and ends up giving years of his life which can never be replaced is the least we could do.
I've never heard, but has anyone that has been freed get any money at all, cause you know after being locked up for possible 10 years or more, it would be difficult to go out and get a job.

only one state has a monetary reimbursement system (California) and it maxes out at $10,000

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:05 PM
Sometimes I wonder if prosecutors are actually more concerned with winning and jailing somebody - anybody they can - for whatever the crime is.

Seems like it's more about winning the case (that helps them further their career and earnings) than it is about putting guilty people behind bars.

DNA testing might prove someone innocent and thus prove a prosecutor wrong. The prosecutor may consider that to be a bad thing - for the prosecutor.

And maybe that's just my perception, but it just sort of seems that way to me.


agreed...pick up this book and you will be shocked

Wrongly Convicted
Perspectives on Failed Justice
Westervelt and Humphrey
2001

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:05 PM
No, they don't. The state is not liable for lawsuit.
I thought I heard when the black guy was released, that they did not get compensated.

I remember seeing a case where a man had went to prison and his sister was in high school and she knew he had not committed the murder he was accused of, she graduated, went to college and law school having in mind to free her brother, she graduated, became his lawyer and proved he was innocent. I thought that was a great story.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:06 PM
only one state has a monetary reimbursement system (California) and it maxes out at $10,000
well I guess they end up getting f*cked twice.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:07 PM
its not alright to let 10 guilty men go, DNA would prove their guilt as well as their innocent.
Thats a redicilous statement.

that is actually one of the founding principles of the criminal justice system...that it is more heinous to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty man go free

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:08 PM
no cause that would be redicilous, taking a innocent mans life is something totally different, and if it were you or your family member that you knew was innocent you'd feel different

Tax payers are paying for mothers who have 2 or 3 kids and no husband and who are too lazy to work, we are paying for them to help raise their kids, but its not ok to help give a person their life back? How much do you think we spend each year on welfare, foodstamps, and insurance and schooling for people who is too damn lazy to get a job, I don't know how much but I bet you could do a lot of DNA testing.
What tax bracket are you in? Typically, those who say it won't cost much aren't the ones who are paying.

I am in the 100,000 a year range. I bust my ass and I am sending 4 kids to college one day and plan on retiring before I am 70. I don't want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars on the chance that an additional .004% of the prison population might be freed. Why should my kids suffer because the politically correct get a bent to test 600,000 prisoners? And how do I know that they won't demand the same tests 10 years from now when DNA testing is even more refined?





I also didn't state the testing should never be done, I stated the testing should only be done in cases in which there is a reasonable possibility of the worth of time. If someone was caught with multiple other reasons and pieces of evidence (not eyewitnesses), there is no reason to do so.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:09 PM
Give me a full list and take that number as the numerator to 600,000 as the denominator. The fraction is still ridiculously small.

one is too many, especially when the technology is available to prove their innocence

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:11 PM
no cause that would be redicilous, taking a innocent mans life is something totally different, and if it were you or your family member that you knew was innocent you'd feel different

Tax payers are paying for mothers who have 2 or 3 kids and no husband and who are too lazy to work, we are paying for them to help raise their kids, but its not ok to help give a person their life back? How much do you think we spend each year on welfare, foodstamps, and insurance and schooling for people who is too damn lazy to get a job, I don't know how much but I bet you could do a lot of DNA testing.
You get them to stop funding all that BS and I'll let you have free DNA testing for everyone.

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:11 PM
one is too many, especially when the technology is available to prove their innocence
Really? So one life is worth hundreds of millions of dollars? And who determines who pays? And how often should that testing be done?

I don't remember your concern for life and the value immeasurable being so strong when relating to abortions.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:13 PM
What tax bracket are you in? Typically, those who say it won't cost much aren't the ones who are paying.

I am in the 100,000 a year range. I bust my ass and I am sending 4 kids to college one day and plan on retiring before I am 70. I don't want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars on the chance that an additional .004% of the prison population might be freed. Why should my kids suffer because the politically correct get a bent to test 600,000 prisoners? And how do I know that they won't demand the same tests 10 years from now when DNA testing is even more refined?





I also didn't state the testing should never be done, I stated the testing should only be done in cases in which there is a reasonable possibility of the worth of time. If someone was caught with multiple other reasons and pieces of evidence (not eyewitnesses), there is no reason to do so.
well sure I don't think they should do testing on those who admitted to the crime and are sane, but people where there is a doubt or question, but I do think child molesters and rapist should have DNA on file before they are let out on the streets only to committ the crime again.

Speaking of child molesters, I saw on nancy Grace tonight that they are looking for a 37 year old man who raped and taped a get this 4 MONTH old baby!!!! I hope someone kills that bastard before hes found.

Oh and I am not in a really high tax bracket but I pay taxes accordingly, why would I pay as much tax as you when I don't make near the money?
What really tripped my trigger on welfare was when I was raising 3 kids by myself and wanted to go to school to become a nurse, but because I was working a full time job making 7 bucks an hour in a hospital and was receiving no welfare, I couldn't get funded and she told me if I was on welfare I could get funded to help me get off of it.
Well, here I was working, not living off the gov. wanting to make my life better for me and my kids and couldn't, but someone who has no ambition, doesn't want a job, ends up getting to go to school and make more than me, while I help foot the bill for their schooling.

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:14 PM
well sure I don't think they should do testing on those who admitted to the crime and are sane, but people where there is a doubt or question, but I do think child molesters and rapist should have DNA on file before they are let out on the streets only to committ the crime again.

Speaking of child molesters, I saw on nancy Grace tonight that they are looking for a 37 year old man who raped and taped a get this 4 MONTH old baby!!!! I hope someone kills that bastard before hes found.
Again, the testing has been refined since the mid-80s. Are you suggesting the testing should be done on the majority of inmates today and then again another 20 years from now when even greater advances occur?

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:16 PM
Really? So one life is worth hundreds of millions of dollars? And who determines who pays? And how often should that testing be done?

One life = One test = $3500 tops how much is your time/life worth?

The state pays (the burden of guilt rests on the state) or if the inmate/family can afford to they should be allowed to have DNA tests conducted

DNA testing should be required in all rape and murder cases from today forward if that type of evidence is available....

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:17 PM
I agree with your point KCWolfman, when the f**k does it stop? At some point we have to be able to wash our hands of this stuff.

Now, if the convict wants to raise the money and get the tests, so be it. The judicial system shouldn't bar them from testing it themselves.

All you bleeding hearts who want to fund this crap can write a $3,500 check and mail it to the inmate of your choice. I hope he isn't holding his breath.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:18 PM
The state pays (the burden of guilt rests on the state) or if the inmate/family can afford to they should be allowed to have DNA tests conducted
The state has already met its burden and convicted the guy. That's why he's in jail.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:18 PM
Now, if the convict wants to raise the money and get the tests, so be it.

should a defendant also be forced to raise money to pay a defense attorney?

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:20 PM
Again, the testing has been refined since the mid-80s. Are you suggesting the testing should be done on the majority of inmates today and then again another 20 years from now when even greater advances occur?
If there is a question of guilt yea I think it should be done.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:21 PM
The state has already met its burden and convicted the guy. That's why he's in jail.

Based upon blood typing (in most cases) which only said that the person in the court room is one of 35 million people that could have done it...

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:21 PM
should a defendant also be forced to raise money to pay a defense attorney?
AFTER he's been convicted? Hell yes.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:22 PM
If there is a question of guilt yea I think it should be done.
Even with a confession there is always a "question of guilt". So, how much of a question does there need to be and how are you going to measure that?

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:23 PM
Based upon blood typing (in most cases) which only said that the person in the court room is one of 35 million people that could have done it...
So write the dude a check for $3,500. Find 599,999 other bleeding hearts who somehow feel guilty about something they've done in their lives to write a check. Now you're covered.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:23 PM
The state has already met its burden and convicted the guy. That's why he's in jail.
but if the guy is innocent it hasnot done its duty, the state has f*cked someones life up

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:25 PM
but if the guy is innocent it hasnot done its duty, the state has f*cked someones life up
And? The thing you're failing to tell me is where does it stop and how do I know when we get there?

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:25 PM
One life = One test = $3500 tops how much is your time/life worth?

The state pays (the burden of guilt rests on the state) or if the inmate/family can afford to they should be allowed to have DNA tests conducted

DNA testing should be required in all rape and murder cases from today forward if that type of evidence is available....
$3500*600,000 = $2,100,000,000. Who pays 2 billion dollars every 20 years? Who should foot the bill?

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:25 PM
AFTER he's been convicted? Hell yes.

So all the people who were convicted pre Gideon v Wainwrite (w/o the help of an attorney) if they wanted to get their freedom should have had to pay for their freedom on thier own? What I'm getting at here is that it is a minimal fee for the state to conduct a test at the request of an inmate who claims he is innocent despite what the jury said ....most people who want DNA testing done know they are innocent...a guilty man is not going to request a DNA test because it closes all doors of appeal (if the test was not already done) it definitavly proves guilt or innocence

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:26 PM
Even with a confession there is always a "question of guilt". So, how much of a question does there need to be and how are you going to measure that?
I really don't know, but do you think 12 people goes to deliberate and all 12 says guilty right away, sometime they probably do, but if they have to bicker about it, someone must have a question of guilt,

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:26 PM
should a defendant also be forced to raise money to pay a defense attorney?
According to your viewpoint on this thread, the taxpayers should pay for the best attorney for every criminal. After all, without the best attorney, what kind of defense is a state appointed attorney going to give? It would be akin to poor or no DNA testing.

KCWolfman
04-14-2005, 10:27 PM
but if the guy is innocent it hasnot done its duty, the state has f*cked someones life up
No, a jury of 12 peers has, not the state.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:29 PM
So all the people who were convicted pre Gideon v Wainwrite (w/o the help of an attorney) if they wanted to get their freedom should have had to pay for their freedom on thier own? What I'm getting at here is that it is a minimal fee for the state to conduct a test at the request of an inmate who claims he is innocent despite what the jury said ....most people who want DNA testing done know they are innocent...a guilty man is not going to request a DNA test because it closes all doors of appeal (if the test was not already done) it definitavly proves guilt or innocence
1. 99.9999999% claim they're innocent.
2. If they didn't have a lawyer and the laws at the time didn't require one, then sorry.
3. $2B dollars isn't a minimal fee.
4. Guilty guys that the state has DNA evidence on have already had it used AGAINST them I'm sure.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:29 PM
And? The thing you're failing to tell me is where does it stop and how do I know when we get there?
Its the same as any other question, where does welfare for people who can work stop? Like DC said if a prisoner requests a DNA test to prove they are innocent probably are, why would a guilty person request one, and since their public defender didnt do his job to start with, the state should foot the bill to prove his innocent just as they did to prove his guilt.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:30 PM
$3500*600,000 = $2,100,000,000. Who pays 2 billion dollars every 20 years? Who should foot the bill?

I don't get where every 20 years comes from? since DNA testing as we know it only came about within the last 10 years or so I suppose I should amend my request to those convicted of murder and rape who are still in prison from 1980-1995 ( as I doubt there are many people left in prison who were convicted pre-1980) of those murderers and rapists only those convicted with evidence that could be DNA tested would be allowed to test DNA...obviously if the evidence isn't there then there can be no test...It think your 600K number is probably a little high....I still don't understand the every 20 years thing to

J Diddy
04-14-2005, 10:30 PM
No, a jury of 12 peers has, not the state.

Yeah but the state sent out those postcards.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:30 PM
I really don't know, but do you think 12 people goes to deliberate and all 12 says guilty right away, sometime they probably do, but if they have to bicker about it, someone must have a question of guilt,
So we call up all the jurors from every case with DNA evidence available and say "Hey, how long did you guys have to deliberate? Less than 2 minutes? Cool, thanks."

Is that your plan?

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:31 PM
No, a jury of 12 peers has, not the state.
you stated earlier, the burden of the state had done its job, well is it the state or the juries

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:33 PM
4. Guilty guys that the state has DNA evidence on have already had it used AGAINST them I'm sure.

UM no thats the point silly goose...the DNA testing is newly available and like many of the names I have already listed the DNA evidence proved their innocence when the blood typing (done up until 1993-94) led to their conviction

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:33 PM
you stated earlier, the burden of the state had done its job, well is it the state or the juries
The jury decided that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt (notice it's not ALL doubt), that the defendant was guilty.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:35 PM
UM no thats the point silly goose...the DNA testing is newly available and like many of the names I have already listed the DNA evidence proved their innocence when the blood typing (done up until 1993-94) led to their conviction
...and you and badgirl should be allowed to write the check to cover the costs of helping them have DNA tests run.

Now, what are you going to do in cases where the DNA evidence can't be found or is damaged to the point it can't be used? Do they get a whole new trial?

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:36 PM
So we call up all the jurors from every case with DNA evidence available and say "Hey, how long did you guys have to deliberate? Less than 2 minutes? Cool, thanks."

Is that your plan?

WHOA there killer I think you are missing something...DNA testing has only been around for about 10 years or so...there is an abundance of blood/semen/hair evidence sitting in different places around the united states that can be DNA tested today for crimes that were committed a long time ago....and FWIW the guy who was executed (O'Dell) his family has raised the funds and wants the evidence tested but the state refuses to .....

badgirl
04-14-2005, 10:37 PM
The jury decided that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt (notice it's not ALL doubt), that the defendant was guilty.
I bet if you asked the guys who spend over a decade in prison behind bars, while that jury was out living their lives if the state proved their guilt there would be some questioning of the proof, how does someone convict an innocent man and say it was proven?

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:39 PM
Now, what are you going to do in cases where the DNA evidence can't be found or is damaged to the point it can't be used? Do they get a whole new trial?

and like I said if there is no DNA evidence then nothing can be done...sheesh...you can't have a DNA test on something that doesn't contain DNA...I thought that was just common sense...my fault.....As of today our technology allows for us to test DNA that has been exposed to multiple donors and separate who those donors are....it is very rare that DNA is damaged beyond the point of useability

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:39 PM
WHOA there killer I think you are missing something...DNA testing has only been around for about 10 years or so...there is an abundance of blood/semen/hair evidence sitting in different places around the united states that can be DNA tested today for crimes that were committed a long time ago....and FWIW the guy who was executed (O'Dell) his family has raised the funds and wants the evidence tested but the state refuses to .....
I know it's recent. I just don't think we should be forced to pay to revisit every decision ever made when new technology becomes available.

As for the state refusing, I agree completely. F**k them, it costs them nothing to turn over some samples and let those people run their tests. IMO that's just another abuse of govt. power.

Only way to stop the govt. from abusing power is to starve the beast, ie quit sending them money.

I should really be in bed, but this is a rare opportunity to argue with DenverChief live, one of my favorite things to do... :thumb:

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:43 PM
I bet if you asked the guys who spend over a decade in prison behind bars, while that jury was out living their lives if the state proved their guilt there would be some questioning of the proof, how does someone convict an innocent man and say it was proven?
Wow. Just wow. Read it with me:

PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

That's actually the law. It's what is told to juries.

It is nearly impossible to "prove" that someone is guilty without a video tape (which could be forged you know) or a whole slew of witnesses. I would bet you that 95% or more of today's convicts were convicted with something less that that.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:43 PM
I know it's recent. I just don't think we should be forced to pay to revisit every decision ever made when new technology becomes available.

As for the state refusing, I agree completely. F**k them, it costs them nothing to turn over some samples and let those people run their tests. IMO that's just another abuse of govt. power.

Only way to stop the govt. from abusing power is to starve the beast, ie quit sending them money.

I should really be in bed, but this is a rare opportunity to argue with DenverChief live, one of my favorite things to do... :thumb:

The old technology could only have reduced the number of possible people to around 35 million the new technology reduces that to one....arguing is fun :)

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:45 PM
Wow. Just wow. Read it with me:

PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

That's actually the law. It's what is told to juries.

It is nearly impossible to "prove" that someone is guilty without a video tape (which could be forged you know) or a whole slew of witnesses. I would bet you that 95% or more of today's convicts were convicted with something less that that.


and if those juries were given the results of DNA testing would they still have returned a verdict of guilty?

elvomito
04-14-2005, 10:49 PM
No, they don't. The state is not liable for lawsuit.
who said anything about lawsuit?
...one new section relating to compensation for those released from the department of corrections after post-conviction DNA testing...
http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/biltxt/intro/HB0732I.htm

for your reading pleasure:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&q=wrongful+incarceration+compensation

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:49 PM
The old technology could only have reduced the number of possible people to around 35 million the new technology reduces that to one....arguing is fun :)
Arguing is only fun with people who can stay to point and not go psycho. If they aren't going to argue logically then nobody is going anywhere and there's no point.

My point is this: These men were convicted using the evidence available at the time, following the laws at that time. Therefore the state and my wallet have met their burden.

The thing I think needs to be examined more closely is where does this take us? Should everyone who shot someone get new testing because ballistics have improved? Should every crime scene be revisited because forensics have improved? Should every victim be dug up and autopsied because medical science has improved? You have to draw a line somewhere. I choose to draw mine right where we stand today.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:51 PM
and if those juries were given the results of DNA testing would they still have returned a verdict of guilty?
If they were given a time machine to go back and look would they have returned a guilty verdict?

I don't know if the case would have come out any differently and neither do you. And if they can raise $3,500 then by all means give them a sample to test.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:52 PM
Arguing is only fun with people who can stay to point and not go psycho. If they aren't going to argue logically then nobody is going anywhere and there's no point.

My point is this: These men were convicted using the evidence available at the time, following the laws at that time. Therefore the state and my wallet have met their burden.

The thing I think needs to be examined more closely is where does this take us? Should everyone who shot someone get new testing because ballistics have improved? Should every crime scene be revisited because forensics have improved? Should every victim be dug up and autopsied because medical science has improved? You have to draw a line somewhere. I choose to draw mine right where we stand today.

none of those other technologies alone can definitavly proove guilt or innocence

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:55 PM
none of those other technologies alone can definitavly proove guilt or innocence
So how do we measure "definitive"? If you're in there for shooting someone, which you did not do, and your cellmate is in there for raping someone, which he did not do, you aren't going to be a little pissed that he got out and you didn't? That the state paid to run tests to help him get out and you are still stuck there, nobody running any new tests on the slug?

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:56 PM
If they were given a time machine to go back and look would they have returned a guilty verdict?

I don't know if the case would have come out any differently and neither do you. And if they can raise $3,500 then by all means give them a sample to test.

ok so given a choice would you rather surrender $3500 to free an innocent man or have the innocent man raise $3500 and the have the state subject to a $35 million lawsuit for wrongful imprisionment? What if the deal was the state pays for the test they are immune from lawsuits but if the convict pays then the state is liable?

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:57 PM
none of those other technologies alone can definitavly proove guilt or innocence
Also, neither can DNA.

A woman is raped. The only DNA evidence is pubic hairs found entagled in hers. They wind up not matching the DNA of the person convicted.

Of course, unbeknownst to us, she had consentual sex earlier and the hairs belong to that man. The perp, thinking ahead, shaved his off.

You still don't KNOW, even with your test.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 10:58 PM
So how do we measure "definitive"? If you're in there for shooting someone, which you did not do, and your cellmate is in there for raping someone, which he did not do, you aren't going to be a little pissed that he got out and you didn't? That the state paid to run tests to help him get out and you are still stuck there, nobody running any new tests on the slug?

you are missing the point...the DNA proves you were either there or not...a ballistics test does not prove nor disprove that a person was at the scene or not, it merely proves what type of weapon was used

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 10:58 PM
What if the deal was the state pays for the test they are immune from lawsuits but if the convict pays then the state is liable?
Then I'm moving out of the country because I'm going to go broke either way.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:00 PM
Also, neither can DNA.

A woman is raped. The only DNA evidence is pubic hairs found entagled in hers. They wind up not matching the DNA of the person convicted.

Of course, unbeknownst to us, she had consentual sex earlier and the hairs belong to that man. The perp, thinking ahead, shaved his off.

You still don't KNOW, even with your test.

:LOL: you have a point however if blood or semen testing do definitaly prove weather you were there or not

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:01 PM
and if those juries were given the results of DNA testing would they still have returned a verdict of guilty?
yes I know what it says and beyond meaning there can't be a reasonable doubt, if one juror has a doubt there should be no conviction. I realize that is pushing it to the limits but that is what BEYOND a reasonable doubt means IMO

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:01 PM
Then I'm moving out of the country because I'm going to go broke either way.


oh I think you are being a bit over dramatic

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:02 PM
:LOL: you have a point however if blood or semen testing do definitaly prove weather you were there or not
Yeah but all you're proving is guilt, not innocence. Hell, I've already convicted them, why prove it further? :)

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:02 PM
yes I know what it says and beyond meaning there can't be a reasonable doubt, if one juror has a doubt there should be no conviction. I realize that is pushing it to the limits but that is what BEYOND a reasonable doubt means IMO
Man, I'd go do lots of evil s**t if I could be sure you'd be on my jury...

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:05 PM
I agree with what DC said earlier about DNA usually stays good when they have it, it was the key role in finding proving BTK was the killer and they were using DNA that had been obtained in the 70's

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:08 PM
Yeah but all you're proving is guilt, not innocence. Hell, I've already convicted them, why prove it further? :)

not true...if there was evidence of another person at the crime scene the prosecution would have advanced that theory at the original trial...so if the blood/semen at the scene did not match the DNA of the accused then it proves he is innocent of the crime

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:09 PM
Arguing is only fun with people who can stay to point and not go psycho. If they aren't going to argue logically then nobody is going anywhere and there's no point.

My point is this: These men were convicted using the evidence available at the time, following the laws at that time. Therefore the state and my wallet have met their burden.


So I guess if someone did some work on your house, say a foundation, and guaranteed it for life, but 10 years up the road the foundation starts cracking and leaking water into your basement, would you go back and have the contractors to fix it,especially if the work had not been done correctly to start with, or would you say eh I'll pay to have it done myself, its not their fault they didn't do it right to begin with.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:12 PM
not true...if there was evidence of another person at the crime scene the prosecution would have advanced that theory at the original trial...so if the blood/semen at the scene did not match the DNA of the accused then it proves he is innocent of the crime
Remember, I said "earlier", as in "not at the crime scene". The DNA was there, but the person never was.

I think our only disagreement here is who should have to pay for it. As a lib, you (of course) want the taxpayer to foot the bill, which IMO will mean that every a**hat in the cell block will want a test. *I* want him to have to come up with the cash, which will mean every a**hat in the cell block will want a test but I won't have to pay for it.

:p

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:13 PM
So I guess if someone did some work on your house, say a foundation, and guaranteed it for life, but 10 years up the road the foundation starts cracking and leaking water into your basement, would you go back and have the contractors to fix it,especially if the work had not been done correctly to start with, or would you say eh I'll pay to have it done myself, its not their fault they didn't do it right to begin with.
You're trying to get me to buy into the assertion that it WASN'T done right the first time. That's BS. It WAS done right the first time, otherwise he would have been granted an appeal which he would have won.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:16 PM
You're trying to get me to buy into the assertion that it WASN'T done right the first time. That's BS. It WAS done right the first time, otherwise he would have been granted an appeal which he would have won.
No, what I am trying to say is why would you pay to have your foundation fixed if it wasn't your fault it started cracking, if it was guaranteed for life, should you come up with the doe to fix their mistake.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:17 PM
Remember, I said "earlier", as in "not at the crime scene". The DNA was there, but the person never was.

I think our only disagreement here is who should have to pay for it. As a lib, you (of course) want the taxpayer to foot the bill, which IMO will mean that every a**hat in the cell block will want a test. *I* want him to have to come up with the cash, which will mean every a**hat in the cell block will want a test but I won't have to pay for it.

:p
The only ones WANTING it done would be the innocent ones, why would a guilty person want it done to further prove his guilt?

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:19 PM
No, what I am trying to say is why would you pay to have your foundation fixed if it wasn't your fault it started cracking, if it was guaranteed for life, should you come up with the doe to fix their mistake.
The convict has no lifetime guarantee. Well, I guess in some cases he is guaranteed to be IN for life, but that's different.

You play a lot of emotion on this, but you can't set measurable goals for your cause. If it can't be measured then it can't be done. If you can't find a way to write the law defining where and when and how it applies, then you can't have the law.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:21 PM
The only ones WANTING it done would be the innocent ones, why would a guilty person want it done to further prove his guilt?
If he's already a lifer or on death row then why NOT take the chance that maybe, just maybe, the hairs they found don't belong to you? Maybe, just maybe, the evidence was lost.

What are we going to do if it's found to be a match, make them more dead or put them away for more than life? They can't lose.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:21 PM
It WAS done right the first time, otherwise he would have been granted an appeal which he would have won.

Actually due to the "anti terrorism and appeals act" the appeals have been limited in time and number...so if someone who was convicted 20 years ago cannot file anymore appeals or if they have already used all of ther available appeals then no matter how "good" the new evidence they may not appeal...this act also severly limited the availablility of federal courts as an avenue of appeals

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:22 PM
The convict has no lifetime guarantee. Well, I guess in some cases he is guaranteed to be IN for life, but that's different.

You play a lot of emotion on this, but you can't set measurable goals for your cause. If it can't be measured then it can't be done. If you can't find a way to write the law defining where and when and how it applies, then you can't have the law.
its my person opinion, I am not out to write a new law I wouldn't know where to start, DC wanted input on the subject and thats what I did, just my opinion, I don't have all the anwsers about funding, but I do think if the court made a mistake they should have to fix it, but we have already been around that block.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:23 PM
Actually due to the "anti terrorism and appeals act" the appeals have been limited in time and number...so if someone who was convicted 20 years ago cannot file anymore appeals or if they have already used all of ther available appeals then no matter how "good" the new evidence they may not appeal...this act also severly limited the availablility of federal courts as an avenue of appeals
I'll even give them a new trial (even if they are out of appeals) if they pay for the DNA test and find it isn't a match. If the prosecutor thinks they can still make the case, I'll foot the bill on the new trial. If the prosecutor thinks no way, then let the dude out.

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:24 PM
If he's already a lifer or on death row then why NOT take the chance that maybe, just maybe, the hairs they found don't belong to you? Maybe, just maybe, the evidence was lost.

What are we going to do if it's found to be a match, make them more dead or put them away for more than life? They can't lose.
if its a match make them or their family pay back the state for the test.

Or maby run the test and based upon its results will determine who pays for it, guily the criminal pays, innocent the state pays. How bout that.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:27 PM
its my person opinion, I am not out to write a new law I wouldn't know where to start, DC wanted input on the subject and thats what I did, just my opinion, I don't have all the anwsers about funding, but I do think if the court made a mistake they should have to fix it, but we have already been around that block.
I understand. It's horrible to imaging being locked up and innocent. Hell, if a convict's family got ahold of me and could present a convincing case the he was innocent and that the DNA could prove it *I* might write a $3,500 check for that test.

All I'm asking is that you not force me to for every idiot in jail. If you pass this as a law it is going to apply to everyone, not a case-by-case basis. It will cost way more than you think. This isn't the only ugly thing happening in the world today. We simply can't afford to pay to fix them all.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:28 PM
Maybe, just maybe, the evidence was lost.


If the evidence was lost then there is no appeal

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:29 PM
if its a match make them or their family pay back the state for the test.

Or maby run the test and based upon its results will determine who pays for it, guily the criminal pays, innocent the state pays. How bout that.
Do you really think you'd get these people to pay? We would spend even more money chasing them down to get our $3,500 back only to find out they're welfare queens and we're basically paying ourselves back.

As for the reimbursement if the person is found innocent, I might be able to be convinced to go there. I would require that there be another trial, though. If that person wins or the prosecutor drops the case then cut them a $3,500 check.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:30 PM
If the evidence was lost then there is no appeal
I wonder how much evidence would get lost for those weaker cases the moment this law was passed...

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:30 PM
If the evidence was lost then there is no appeal
if the evidence was lost there would be no comparable DNA.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:32 PM
I wonder how much evidence would get lost for those weaker cases the moment this law was passed...:shrug:

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:32 PM
Do you really think you'd get these people to pay? We would spend even more money chasing them down to get our $3,500 back only to find out they're welfare queens and we're basically paying ourselves back.

As for the reimbursement if the person is found innocent, I might be able to be convinced to go there. I would require that there be another trial, though. If that person wins or the prosecutor drops the case then cut them a $3,500 check.
Finally we agree on a little something. :thumb:

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:32 PM
if the evidence was lost there would be no comparable DNA.
Who should be responsible for that? Hell, the convict didn't lose the evidence, now he's going to pay for the state's mistake AGAIN!!! :deevee:



:)

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:33 PM
Who should be responsible for that? Hell, the convict didn't lose the evidence, now he's going to pay for the state's mistake AGAIN!!! :deevee:



:)
that could not be changed, nothing we could do about it.

Simplex3
04-14-2005, 11:34 PM
All right you two, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate. I'd rep you both but appearantly I rep'd badgirl earlier on something. DC already got his.

Thanks and Goodnight.

DenverChief
04-14-2005, 11:36 PM
Who should be responsible for that? Hell, the convict didn't lose the evidence, now he's going to pay for the state's mistake AGAIN!!! :deevee:



:)

The evidence technician or the last person in the chain of custoy should be liable for criminal prosecution as should police officers and prosecutors who intentionally withhold information which would exonorate someone of guilt

badgirl
04-14-2005, 11:36 PM
All right you two, I'm off to bed. Thanks for the debate. I'd rep you both but appearantly I rep'd badgirl earlier on something. DC already got his.

Thanks and Goodnight.
Nighty nite and sweet dreams

mcan
04-14-2005, 11:51 PM
You would think it would be worth paying thousands of dollars for each of 600,000 convicts to free 79?

Do you also believe it is worth testing every drop of water in the ocean to find 100 drops of fresh water?



Hmm, while looking I found an interesting statistic direct from the Bureau of Justice. While many of you, including the author of this thread, state the prisons are being overrun with drug offenders and violent criminals are getting out, it is obvious you are wrong. Drug offenders in prison have risen about 200,000 over the last 25 years while violent criminals have increased by more than 400,000.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.gif


I haven't read the whole thread, but look at this a little closer.
First we have to consider that since 1980, the US population in all 50 states has risen about 46 million people. (226 to 281). That's a 20% increase. So we can expect that prison population to increase by 20% too. From your graph it looks like the percentage of increase is closer to 424% total (285K to 1.2 Million). Subtract the given 20% increase that we would expect and it looks like crime RATES have about quadroupled in this country TOTAL.

Now look at the % increase for each crime.

Violent- From about 180K to about 600K. A 333% increase. Less than the total average. 313% after figuring for population.

Property- From about 90K to about 240K. A 267% increase. Also less than the total average. 247% after figuring for population.

Drug- From about 20K to about 250K. A 1,250% increase! Three times larger of an increase than the average. 1,230% after population increase.

Public Order- From about 10K to about 140K. A 1,400% increase! An even higher increase than drugs. 1,380% after population increase figured in.


Now, I'm not saying that violent offenders are being RELEASED to lock up more druggies and protesters, but I don't think that the percentage of actual drug users has risen all that much since the 80s. But cops looking to bust druggies has risen more than 10 fold. On the other hand, I don't think there as all that much more violet crime either. But, sure enough we are putting in a little more effort and catching and convicting about 3 times more people. This is probably due to technology and better forensic scientists. It's probably also due to the fact that we now arrest people for getting in bar fights or beating their wives. (That's a good thing). That stuff used to slide quite a bit.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 06:08 AM
WHOA there killer I think you are missing something...DNA testing has only been around for about 10 years or so...there is an abundance of blood/semen/hair evidence sitting in different places around the united states that can be DNA tested today for crimes that were committed a long time ago....and FWIW the guy who was executed (O'Dell) his family has raised the funds and wants the evidence tested but the state refuses to .....
DNA testing has been around for well over 20 years. Genelex is one of the first public traded corps that specifically does DNA testing alone and they were incorporated in 1987.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 06:12 AM
I haven't read the whole thread, but look at this a little closer.
First we have to consider that since 1980, the US population in all 50 states has risen about 46 million people. (226 to 281). That's a 20% increase. So we can expect that prison population to increase by 20% too. From your graph it looks like the percentage of increase is closer to 424% total (285K to 1.2 Million). Subtract the given 20% increase that we would expect and it looks like crime RATES have about quadroupled in this country TOTAL.

Now look at the % increase for each crime.

Violent- From about 180K to about 600K. A 333% increase. Less than the total average. 313% after figuring for population.

Property- From about 90K to about 240K. A 267% increase. Also less than the total average. 247% after figuring for population.

Drug- From about 20K to about 250K. A 1,250% increase! Three times larger of an increase than the average. 1,230% after population increase.

Public Order- From about 10K to about 140K. A 1,400% increase! An even higher increase than drugs. 1,380% after population increase figured in.


Now, I'm not saying that violent offenders are being RELEASED to lock up more druggies and protesters, but I don't think that the percentage of actual drug users has risen all that much since the 80s. But cops looking to bust druggies has risen more than 10 fold. On the other hand, I don't think there as all that much more violet crime either. But, sure enough we are putting in a little more effort and catching and convicting about 3 times more people. This is probably due to technology and better forensic scientists. It's probably also due to the fact that we now arrest people for getting in bar fights or beating their wives. (That's a good thing). That stuff used to slide quite a bit.
It is a valid point, but not one normally made by people on this board. The point made by people on this board is that violent criminals are not being sequestered in prisons so that we can lock up more drug offenders. Obviously, that point is false per the statistics provided by the Bureau of Justice.

badgirl
04-15-2005, 06:14 AM
DNA testing has been around for well over 20 years. Genelex is one of the first public traded corps that specifically does DNA testing alone and they were incorporated in 1987.
I watch all the court tv shows and read every true crime book i can get my hands on and there have been several time someone was killed in the 80's or early 90's and DNA wasn't used for several years later, after it had become a cold case.

DNA may have existed, but wasn't being used like it has been the past 10 years or so.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 06:28 AM
I watch all the court tv shows and read every true crime book i can get my hands on and there have been several time someone was killed in the 80's or early 90's and DNA wasn't used for several years later, after it had become a cold case.

DNA may have existed, but wasn't being used like it has been the past 10 years or so.
Again, that may be your point, but not what was originally brought up on this thread.

We currently house 600,000 violent criminals. Who is going to pay 3,500 for each of these criminals? And how long before we test again? After all, there will be dramatic increases in reliability, testing, and new kinds of tests over the next 10 years. I personally don't want to pay out $3,500 x 600,000 prisoners = 2 Billion dollars every ten years when advancements are made.

You guys seem to think that a single test on each prisoner will be sufficient. There is no way that scenario comes to fruition. Once you pay billions of dollars to test the prisoners, it will merely establish precedent so that any criminal can demand testing every time a new test is used in court. Prisoners suck enough money from our tax dollars as it is. And to be honest, they deserve it a lot less than the welfare mommas you were complaining about earlier.

Here is something reasonable to consider, privatize prison systems and allow corporations to run them. Pay the prisoners a measly fee daily and let the corps profit off of them like hell. Illegal immigrants could no longer take jobs that were filled by prisoners. Prisoners would not obtain early release as corporations would want the cheap employees. Price of products would drop dramatically. And inform the corps that the only way this could happen is if they provide the testing for any prisoner who demands it on the condition that the prisoner accepts an additional 5 years in prison if the evidence is not sufficient to clear his name.

badgirl
04-15-2005, 06:31 AM
Again, that may be your point, but not what was originally brought up on this thread.

We currently house 600,000 violent criminals. Who is going to pay 3,500 for each of these criminals? And how long before we test again? After all, there will be dramatic increases in reliability, testing, and new kinds of tests over the next 10 years. I personally don't want to pay out $3,500 x 600,000 prisoners = 2 Billion dollars every ten years when advancements are made.

You guys seem to think that a single test on each prisoner will be sufficient. There is no way that scenario comes to fruition. Once you pay billions of dollars to test the prisoners, it will merely establish precedent so that any criminal can demand testing every time a new test is used in court. Prisoners suck enough money from our tax dollars as it is. And to be honest, they deserve it a lot less than the welfare mommas you were complaining about earlier.

Here is something reasonable to consider, privatize prison systems and allow corporations to run them. Pay the prisoners a measly fee daily and let the corps profit off of them like hell. Illegal immigrants could no longer take jobs that were filled by prisoners. Prisoners would not obtain early release as corporations would want the cheap employees. Price of products would drop dramatically. And inform the corps that the only way this could happen is if they provide the testing for any prisoner who demands it on the condition that the prisoner accepts an additional 5 years in prison if the evidence is not sufficient to clear his name.
Well I was actually thinking about this after I went to bed last night and a solution may be for the family or prisioner whoever wants the tests done to come up with the 3500. put it aside, do the testing, if it is found they are innocent, give the 3500. back, if guilty, then keep the money, but have the money before the testings done, having to come up with the money first would keep from some the the guilty ones wanting to waste money by taking a chance they innocent.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 06:43 AM
Well I was actually thinking about this after I went to bed last night and a solution may be for the family or prisioner whoever wants the tests done to come up with the 3500. put it aside, do the testing, if it is found they are innocent, give the 3500. back, if guilty, then keep the money, but have the money before the testings done, having to come up with the money first would keep from some the the guilty ones wanting to waste money by taking a chance they innocent.
Sound thinking, and reasonable.

badgirl
04-15-2005, 06:52 AM
Sound thinking, and reasonable.
I hope a lot of people read this thread because I don't think those words have ever been written when refering to me ROFL :thumb: thanks

DenverChief
04-15-2005, 07:13 AM
Again, that may be your point, but not what was originally brought up on this thread.

We currently house 600,000 violent criminals. Who is going to pay 3,500 for each of these criminals? And how long before we test again? After all, there will be dramatic increases in reliability, testing, and new kinds of tests over the next 10 years. I personally don't want to pay out $3,500 x 600,000 prisoners = 2 Billion dollars every ten years when advancements are made.

You guys seem to think that a single test on each prisoner will be sufficient. There is no way that scenario comes to fruition. Once you pay billions of dollars to test the prisoners, it will merely establish precedent so that any criminal can demand testing every time a new test is used in court. Prisoners suck enough money from our tax dollars as it is. And to be honest, they deserve it a lot less than the welfare mommas you were complaining about earlier.

Here is something reasonable to consider, privatize prison systems and allow corporations to run them. Pay the prisoners a measly fee daily and let the corps profit off of them like hell. Illegal immigrants could no longer take jobs that were filled by prisoners. Prisoners would not obtain early release as corporations would want the cheap employees. Price of products would drop dramatically. And inform the corps that the only way this could happen is if they provide the testing for any prisoner who demands it on the condition that the prisoner accepts an additional 5 years in prison if the evidence is not sufficient to clear his name.


WOW :shake: I already explained to you earlier the problem with your math but go ahead and contiune to use it :shake:

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:19 AM
WOW :shake: I already explained to you earlier the problem with your math but go ahead and contiune to use it :shake:
He asked while totally dodging the several points made on this thread.

You came up with established numbers when you noted my mathematical issue? I didn't see that. How many prisoners are we talking and where did you derive the figure?

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:21 AM
So all the people who were convicted pre Gideon v Wainwrite (w/o the help of an attorney) if they wanted to get their freedom should have had to pay for their freedom on thier own? What I'm getting at here is that it is a minimal fee for the state to conduct a test at the request of an inmate who claims he is innocent despite what the jury said ....most people who want DNA testing done know they are innocent...a guilty man is not going to request a DNA test because it closes all doors of appeal (if the test was not already done) it definitavly proves guilt or innocence
Bullsh*t.

A guilty man will do anything he can to clog the system and go on any mistrial chance he can of bad draws, poor testing, and mishandled evidence while the testing is being done.

DenverChief
04-15-2005, 07:22 AM
I don't get where every 20 years comes from? since DNA testing as we know it only came about within the last 10 years or so I suppose I should amend my request to those convicted of murder and rape who are still in prison from 1980-1995 ( as I doubt there are many people left in prison who were convicted pre-1980) of those murderers and rapists only those convicted with evidence that could be DNA tested would be allowed to test DNA...obviously if the evidence isn't there then there can be no test...It think your 600K number is probably a little high....I still don't understand the every 20 years thing to

DenverChief
04-15-2005, 07:23 AM
Bullsh*t.

A guilty man will do anything he can to clog the system and go on any mistrial chance he can of bad draws, poor testing, and mishandled evidence while the testing is being done.

please preface all of your posts with IMO

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:23 AM
I don't get where every 20 years comes from? since DNA testing as we know it only came about within the last 10 years or so I suppose I should amend my request to those convicted of murder and rape who are still in prison from 1980-1995 ( as I doubt there are many people left in prison who were convicted pre-1980) of those murderers and rapists only those convicted with evidence that could be DNA tested would be allowed to test DNA...obviously if the evidence isn't there then there can be no test...It think your 600K number is probably a little high....I still don't understand the every 20 years thing to
This must be the post you are referring to.

And honestly, it is without merit. You are stating my numbers are too high, but offer nothing in return for legitimate numbers. You also erroneously assume that DNA testing has only been done for ten years, and you further pull yourself from reality with the idea that testing will only be done once for all eternity.

Breaking news, DC, DNA testing is not conclusive - see OJ

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:24 AM
please preface all of your posts with IMO
As long as I am quoting you, that shouldn't be difficult.

stumppy
04-15-2005, 07:24 AM
Sound thinking, and reasonable.



You just bent over for any and every future argument on the planet.











:D

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:26 AM
You just bent over for any and every future argument on the planet.











:D
Hell, I love it when someone like badgirl makes more sense than DC. I will gladly point that out anytime.

DenverChief
04-15-2005, 07:28 AM
This must be the post you are referring to.

And honestly, it is without merit. You are stating my numbers are too high, but offer nothing in return for legitimate numbers. You also erroneously assume that DNA testing has only been done for ten years, and you further pull yourself from reality with the idea that testing will only be done once for all eternity.

Breaking news, DC, DNA testing is not conclusive - see OJ



I'm sorry but you are sorely mistaken...you are painting broad strokes with that paintbrush of yours

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:30 AM
I'm sorry but you are sorely mistaken...you are painting broad strokes with that paintbrush of yours
Wow, nice retort.... full of information... lots of relevant data... plenty to consider.

If you had added a few extra commas in your post I could have confused you with someone else on this board.

badgirl
04-15-2005, 09:28 AM
: someone like badgirl

:spock: uh, thanks I think :p

DenverChief
04-15-2005, 07:06 PM
Wow, nice retort.... full of information... lots of relevant data... plenty to consider.

If you had added a few extra commas in your post I could have confused you with someone else on this board.

lets see here

of the 600,000 violent offenders not all of them will have DNA evidence...we will conservativly say that only removes 150,000 offenders from the list...then we will conservativly estimate that another 150,000 offenders will not bother knowing any test of DNA will either destroy any future appeal or that DNA testing will do nothing but further prove them guilty....that automatically reduces the 600,000 figure in half....then we have to figure that there are offenders who had materials that held DNA information that were either lost or destroyed which we will place a very conservative 50,000 number on now we only have 250,000 cases n which to review...hence your 600,000 2 billion figure is assinine...thanks for using yor brain

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 07:52 PM
lets see here

of the 600,000 violent offenders not all of them will have DNA evidence...we will conservativly say that only removes 150,000 offenders from the list...then we will conservativly estimate that another 150,000 offenders will not bother knowing any test of DNA will either destroy any future appeal or that DNA testing will do nothing but further prove them guilty....that automatically reduces the 600,000 figure in half....then we have to figure that there are offenders who had materials that held DNA information that were either lost or destroyed which we will place a very conservative 50,000 number on now we only have 250,000 cases n which to review...hence your 600,000 2 billion figure is assinine...thanks for using yor brain
Thanks for the intelligence review. What do you think of the moron who said this and actually assumed it was ALL rapists and murderers from the last 25 years and not the numbers you have magically created now that you look like a fool?

Be performed on all persons convicted of murder and rape the past 25 years?


Feel stupid or pretty much the same as usual?

jettio
04-15-2005, 08:14 PM
Even with the names you listed, the percentage is obscenely low.

No, the taxpayers should not be unnecessarily burdened. I wouldn't mind cases reviewed for the possibility and have the testing when the testing would be sufficient and the evidence overwhelming to decide to use the tests, but I would venture to state that 90% of the cases would be a waste of taxpayers dollars.

Every time an innocent convict is exonerated by DNA, they should put a person that thinks like this in prison to take their place.

jettio
04-15-2005, 08:16 PM
What tax bracket are you in? Typically, those who say it won't cost much aren't the ones who are paying.

I am in the 100,000 a year range. I bust my ass and I am sending 4 kids to college one day and plan on retiring before I am 70. I don't want to pay hundreds of millions of dollars on the chance that an additional .004% of the prison population might be freed. Why should my kids suffer because the politically correct get a bent to test 600,000 prisoners? And how do I know that they won't demand the same tests 10 years from now when DNA testing is even more refined?





I also didn't state the testing should never be done, I stated the testing should only be done in cases in which there is a reasonable possibility of the worth of time. If someone was caught with multiple other reasons and pieces of evidence (not eyewitnesses), there is no reason to do so.

Every time an innocent convict is exonerated by DNA, they should put a person that thinks like this in prison to take their place.

jettio
04-15-2005, 08:17 PM
And? The thing you're failing to tell me is where does it stop and how do I know when we get there?

Every time an innocent convict is exonerated by DNA, they should put a person that thinks like this in prison to take their place.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 10:13 PM
Every time an innocent convict is exonerated by DNA, they should put a person that thinks like this in prison to take their place.
I was thinking perhaps they should put lawyers in their stead, at least that would reduce the criminal and soulless element at the same time.

go bowe
04-15-2005, 11:22 PM
I was thinking perhaps they should put lawyers in their stead, at least that would reduce the criminal and soulless element at the same time.ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
04-15-2005, 11:25 PM
I was thinking perhaps they should put lawyers in their stead, at least that would reduce the criminal and soulless element at the same time.i have to comment on this one...

a truly superior witicism in response to three repetitions of inanity...

he set himself up for it, but you served the shitcream pie right into his face... ROFL ROFL ROFL

outstanding work... :toast: :toast: :toast:

Sparhawk
04-15-2005, 11:38 PM
If DNA can prove a person innocent or guilty, then I say yes it should be used immediately. I further say that for those who've commited murder that if they are proven without any doubt to be guilty, then they should be immediately consigned to the death chamber. This would save us hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, and open up space in our prisons.

KCWolfman
04-15-2005, 11:49 PM
i have to comment on this one...

a truly superior witicism in response to three repetitions of inanity...

he set himself up for it, but you served the shitcream pie right into his face... ROFL ROFL ROFL

outstanding work... :toast: :toast: :toast:
I am easily inspired. I take no credit

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:18 AM
Thanks for the intelligence review. What do you think of the moron who said this and actually assumed it was ALL rapists and murderers from the last 25 years and not the numbers you have magically created now that you look like a fool?




Feel stupid or pretty much the same as usual?


its not my fault you have no common sense

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:25 AM
its not my fault you have no common sense
Oh, I didn't realize that common sense dictated when the word "all" was used it only meant less than half. Even worse is the idea that you are trying to get us to believe that your mistake was merely my misinterpretation.

Why not just admit you were wrong instead of attacking me for your own stupidity on the topic?

What you mean is "do those who DC believes to be justified deserve to have free DNA sampling done on their already decided cases?" Not "all" as you originally and erroneously stated before attempting to throw the blame on me.

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:28 AM
Oh, I didn't realize that common sense dictated when the word "all" was used it only meant less than half. Even worse is the idea that you are trying to get us to believe that your mistake was merely my misinterpretation.

Why not just admit you were wrong instead of attacking me for your own stupidity on the topic?

What you mean is "do those who DC believes to be justified deserve to have free DNA sampling done on their already decided cases?" Not "all" as you originally and erroneously stated before attempting to throw the blame on me.

If I said all people should have their drivers licences renewed every year would you assume people 0-14 years of age should also? of course not...stop it! stop it! stop it! jeesh talk about obtuse

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:30 AM
Oh, I didn't realize that common sense dictated when the word "all" was used it only meant less than half. Even worse is the idea that you are trying to get us to believe that your mistake was merely my misinterpretation.

Why not just admit you were wrong instead of attacking me for your own stupidity on the topic?

What you mean is "do those who DC believes to be justified deserve to have free DNA sampling done on their already decided cases?" Not "all" as you originally and erroneously stated before attempting to throw the blame on me.

notice you are also the only person arguing this position

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:30 AM
If I said all people should have their drivers licences renewed every year would you assume people 0-14 years of age should also? of course not...stop it! stop it! stop it! jeesh talk about obtuse

I wouldn't assume 14 year olds had licenses, just as I didn't assume all non-prisoners should have DNA testing to prove their innocence.

In fact, I didn't assume anything. I took your statement at face value and now when faced with your own inane ability to admit fault, you use the "It's not what I said, it's what I meant". Be an adult for a change.

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:31 AM
notice you are also the only person arguing this position
He said while arguing that minorities opinion are just as valuable as the majorities.

Keep diggin that pit, hypocrite. You will never get out.

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:35 AM
notice you are also the only person arguing this position
Funny, I thought the same thing when I read your lie regarding all actually only meaning less than half.

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:36 AM
I should have assumed prisoners without DNA evidence shouldn't have DNA testing to prove their innocence.


I fixed your post

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:37 AM
Funny, I thought the same thing when I read your lie regarding all actually only meaning less than half.


you are a fackin moran and will argue the most insignificat point to prove you are a know it all....

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:38 AM
I fixed your post
You should start with your own

Should DNA testing be performed on all persons convicted of murder and rape the past 25 years?

Okay, not really all, just some, but we don't know which some except that they should have some previous evidence of somekind and should have been found kinda guilty in some court somewhere


Since you have gone off the deep end, you really aren't even worthy of a challenge anymore.

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:41 AM
you are a fackin moran and will argue the most insignificat point to prove you are a know it all....
He said while refusing to acknowledge his "insignificant" error. If it were insignificant, why do you struggle so over it?

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:47 AM
You should start with your own






Since you have gone off the deep end, you really aren't even worthy of a challenge anymore.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist..like I said nobody else is advancing your literalist argument

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:49 AM
He said while arguing that minorities opinion are just as valuable as the majorities.

Keep diggin that pit, hypocrite. You will never get out.


ohhh

KCWolfman
04-16-2005, 12:56 AM
It doesn't take a rocket scientist..like I said nobody else is advancing your literalist argument
And who is assisting you in your lie on this thread? I must have missed it. Surely if your only point is "no one is siding with you", you have a point or two from someone else?

DC, it is obvious you are losing it. Not only are you resorting to the d-nisian tactic of "it's what I meant, not what I said", and "this is insignificant, but I will continue to argue the point". Now you are resorting to "nobody likes what you are saying, so you must be wrong".

What a sad sad excuse for a debate. I am done with this one. Hopefully, you can grow up and maybe take a little time to in better form later. As it is now, it is like racing a parapelegic. You really are no competition at all.

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 12:59 AM
blah blah blah

do you have anything to say about the subject matter or are you going to keep arguing your point?

jettio
04-16-2005, 06:38 AM
i have to comment on this one...

a truly superior witicism in response to three repetitions of inanity...

he set himself up for it, but you served the shitcream pie right into his face... ROFL ROFL ROFL

outstanding work... :toast: :toast: :toast:

It is pretty obvious that KCwolfman is soulless enough not to imagine what it must feel like to be convicted of a crime when innocent and it is likely because he can not imagine himself being brought before the court to be convicted of something he did not do.

And as a matter of fact I don't denounce my chosen path in life like you do, just to fit in and I certainly don't feel at all that a retard who is always wrong and who everybody on the board feels sorry for, for not being as smart as he thinks he is, or for his finding it impossible to ever admit when he is obviously wrong, threw any kind of clever smack for expressing his obssessive uninformed and psychopathic hatred of lawyers. His lame act has played many times before and you will not see anyone else but you thinking that it was funny, as a matter of fact, you probably don't either.

Not everyone has your weak sense of humor or willingness to try to compromise what they know to be right from wrong just to fit in.

Congratulations to you.

the Talking Can
04-16-2005, 07:05 AM
If I said all people should have their drivers licences renewed every year would you assume people 0-14 years of age should also? of course not...stop it! stop it! stop it! jeesh talk about obtuse

why on earth would you attempt to have a discussion with wolfman?

seriously, that is the most pointless thing imaginable....I thought everyone had figured that out by now

Earthling
04-16-2005, 09:00 AM
If DNA can prove a person innocent or guilty, then I say yes it should be used immediately. I further say that for those who've commited murder that if they are proven without any doubt to be guilty, then they should be immediately consigned to the death chamber. This would save us hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, and open up space in our prisons.


Agreed on the testing....It used to be that it cost the state more money to execute someone than it did to lock them up for life. (Because of the court costs in the appeals process I believe)

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 11:49 AM
why on earth would you attempt to have a discussion with wolfman?

seriously, that is the most pointless thing imaginable....I thought everyone had figured that out by now


ROFL :wayne:

badgirl
04-16-2005, 11:54 AM
why on earth would you attempt to have a discussion with wolfman?

seriously, that is the most pointless thing imaginable....I thought everyone had figured that out by now
hes the only person who has ever said I had sound and reasonable thinking so I have nothing bad to say about the guy ROFL

jettio
04-16-2005, 01:42 PM
hes the only person who has ever said I had sound and reasonable thinking so I have nothing bad to say about the guy ROFL

FWIW, if you post something he agrees with, he might just proclaim it well reasoned, wonderfully written, and profound, even if you wrote it in crayon with your toes.

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 02:07 PM
FWIW, if you post something he agrees with, he might just proclaim it well reasoned, wonderfully written, and profound, even if you wrote it in crayon with your toes. ROFL

trndobrd
04-16-2005, 03:09 PM
lets see here

of the 600,000 violent offenders not all of them will have DNA evidence...we will conservativly say that only removes 150,000 offenders from the list...then we will conservativly estimate that another 150,000 offenders will not bother knowing any test of DNA will either destroy any future appeal or that DNA testing will do nothing but further prove them guilty....that automatically reduces the 600,000 figure in half....then we have to figure that there are offenders who had materials that held DNA information that were either lost or destroyed which we will place a very conservative 50,000 number on now we only have 250,000 cases n which to review...hence your 600,000 2 billion figure is assinine...thanks for using yor brain


Widespread testing of inmates would have practically nil effect. A huge, possibly as many as 50-60% will not have original DNA to test against. Due to improperly taken samples, degraded or lost samples, lack of samples taken at the time of the crime and a host of other reasons. Again, a large percentage of convicts would be aware that they wouldn't benefit from the results. The vast majority of cases done in the last 10 years or so has already had DNA testing done if samples were available.

The result is a very small, I would guess less than 5%, group of innmates for whom DNA testing would be new evidence, possible to do, and useful. For this group, there are plenty of non-profit organizations picking up the tab.

The bigger issue isn't doing the testing. It's getting the Courts to accept the idea of accepting the DNA results as a compelling reason to allow an additional appeal. Also, getting the prosecutors (who regularly get convictions on the 'hard science' of DNA evidence) to open their minds to the possibilty that DNA evidence should cause them to rethink some of their old convictions.

DenverChief
04-16-2005, 04:12 PM
The result is a very small, I would guess less than 5%, group of innmates for whom DNA testing would be new evidence, possible to do, and useful.

I would say more than 5% but probably less then 25%....just based upon several books I have to read in my wrongful convictions class (Wrongful Conviction, Westerfelt and Humphrey 2001.....Justice Denied, Burnett, 2002......Bloodsworth, Junkin, 2004)