Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

Damocles said:
This ignores the fact that the test he refused is prehistoric, and would point to 16% of all black men as the perpetrator. The chances are this ancient test was taken, and pointed to him incorrectly therefore wasn't brought forward by the defense attorney.

Newer testing is far more accurate, and is "new" evidence.

IMO, regardless of a refusal to include the ancient test that likely would have implicated him, if he can pay for it there is no reason to refuse new evidence.

There are many reasons that people might refuse to defend themselves vigorously, gangs threatening family for example, that later may become moot. It is best to give freedom to as many people who have not committed a crime as possible. This is just one tool for it. "The land of the free." needs to begin acting like the Land of the Free.
Click to expand...

I believe the reason he is being refused the test is because every inmate who was convicted where the "prehistoric" DNA science was used even in part to convict them, will then demand new tests and the states will be forced to pay for it. I say that this IS one of the things that is a reasonable use of tax dollars as opposed to providing inmates hormone injections so they can still feel like jane while incarcerated and many of the other non essentials we are forced to pay for in prison systems.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I believe the reason he is being refused the test is because every inmate who was convicted where the "prehistoric" DNA science was used even in part to convict them, will then demand new tests and the states will be forced to pay for it. I say that this IS one of the things that is a reasonable use of tax dollars as opposed to providing inmates hormone injections so they can still feel like jane while incarcerated and many of the other non essentials we are forced to pay for in prison systems.
Click to expand...
Which was why I said I would draft a law that allowed them if the inmate or another private party paid for it.
 
Damocles said:
Which was why I said I would draft a law that allowed them if the inmate or another private party paid for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think a law like that could hold up. If it can be shown by one case that this kind of "pre historic" DNA is faulty then the burden becomes the state that used it to convict to provide the remedy...i.e. a new test.
 
Damocles said:
Which was why I said I would draft a law that allowed them if the inmate or another private party paid for it.
Click to expand...

I understand your "fiscal conservative" view, but at a cost to taxpayers of around $35,000 annually to incarcerate a person; the test might be a "prudent" investment...
 
Ice Dancer said:
I don't think a law like that could hold up. If it can be shown by one case that this kind of "pre historic" DNA is faulty then the burden becomes the state that used it to convict to provide the remedy...i.e. a new test.
Click to expand...
It could hold up, many laws are drafted for a limited amount of tests if they can afford them, I would just let them waste their cash if they wanted to. I see no real reason to limit it.
 
Bfgrn said:
Originally Posted by Bfgrn
That's a reasonable metaphor...

When psychologists define polarized thinking; black or white, they normally use shades of gray...




Yes it is, and you're not...:p
Click to expand...

I don't try to act like i is sum intellectual to prove to myself and other's that I is better and smarter than everyone.. pity you do...
 
Bfgrn said:
I understand your "fiscal conservative" view, but at a cost to taxpayers of around $35,000 annually to incarcerate a person; the test might be a "prudent" investment...
Click to expand...
A single test may. Unlimited tests would not. Hence the way I would draft the law.
 
Damocles said:
It could hold up, many laws are drafted for a limited amount of tests if they can afford them, I would just let them waste their cash if they wanted to. I see no real reason to limit it.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but your idea isn't premised on the notion that theSstate may be found to have used faulty evidence to convict. In that case I think it would be difficult for the State to then say "oh well if you can pay for a good one then do it". "If not too bad for you".

This is why I say the State wishes to avoid the mess by denying this guy a right to even pay for his own, because if it proves him innocent and if he does have a test from before that shows how faulty it was, well you can see the mess. I think they get that they would then be obligated to provide new testing for every convicted felon where potential faulty evidence was used to convict.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I understand that, but your idea isn't premised on the notion that theSstate may be found to have used faulty evidence to convict. In that case I think it would be difficult for the State to then say "oh well if you can pay for a good one then do it". "If not too bad for you".

This is why I say the State wishes to avoid the mess by denying this guy a right to even pay for his own, because if it proves him innocent and if he does have a test from before that shows how faulty it was, well you can see the mess. I think they get that they would then be obligated to provide new testing for every convicted felon where potential faulty evidence was used to convict.
Click to expand...
That would be regardless of the law, however standards of the time is applied as well as precedent.

If the state was found to have used faulty evidence, even now, they would get that kind ruling by courts. It appears as if the system has protected itself. Did they get their due process? Of course they did, however nowadays new exonerating evidence may be available and the only right thing to do would be to test when it is available, asked for, and paid for.

If the evidence is actually faulty we may have many people in prison that should never have been there, and it is the only moral course to find out. Worrying that we might find out that many people should never have been convicted is not much of a worry to me, and the tests are cheaper if it turns out the state needs to pay than it is to keep them in prison for another year. The right thing to do is to ensure their convictions by allowing them access to tests they pay for. I would even make it so that if it exonerated them it would be repaid by the state. It is far, far cheaper than keeping them in prison for any longer.

There are several tests that are this inaccurate that have been used in the past. Hair matching is one of them, this crappy shotgun style "DNA" test that they used to use is another. Had he brought it to court and it showed he was one of the 16% of black men it could have been, it certainly wouldn't have exonerated him. Nowadays it is accurate to 1 in a billion... sometimes much higher. That is far better.
 
the state didn't use DNA to convict the guy in this case. Why would DNA evidence that shows the guy didn't use the condom suddenly negate the victim's testimony? Even if it's not his DNA in the condom, the state's case didn't rest on the DNA evidence anyway.

Can any of you explain how it makes a difference? It's a waste of time. Even if it's n ot his DNA, there's still an abundance of evidence that was enough for a conviction after due process was served
 
tinfoil said:
the state didn't use DNA to convict the guy in this case. Why would DNA evidence that shows the guy didn't use the condom suddenly negate the victim's testimony? Even if it's not his DNA in the condom, the state's case didn't rest on the DNA evidence anyway.

Can any of you explain how it makes a difference? It's a waste of time. Even if it's n ot his DNA, there's still an abundance of evidence that was enough for a conviction after due process was served
Click to expand...
Again, the test likely showed him as one of the 16% of black men, therefore they didn't use it. It's silly to say they didn't use this test here, therefore he can never use a new and way more accurate test later.

And this isn't for him, it is for everybody. I don't want you, or my kid, or maineman, or anybody convicted of crimes they didn't convict or to serve 1 more day in prison than they have to if there is exonerating evidence available.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the test likely showed him as one of the 16% of black men, therefore they didn't use it. It's silly to say they didn't use this test here, therefore he can never use a new and way more accurate test later.

And this isn't for him, it is for everybody. I don't want you, or my kid, or maineman, or anybody convicted of crimes they didn't convict or to serve 1 more day in prison than they have to if there is exonerating evidence available.
Click to expand...

IT WAS FUCKING AVAILABLE. We can't help that the case was 15 years ago. If every time there's an advancement in DNA technology, do we need to retest every inmate even if they're conviction had not used DNA to convict?
 
Damocles said:
That would be regardless of the law, however standards of the time is applied as well as precedent.

If the state was found to have used faulty evidence, even now, they would get that kind ruling by courts. It appears as if the system has protected itself. Did they get their due process? Of course they did, however nowadays new exonerating evidence may be available and the only right thing to do would be to test when it is available, asked for, and paid for.

If the evidence is actually faulty we may have many people in prison that should never have been there, and it is the only moral course to find out. Worrying that we might find out that many people should never have been convicted is not much of a worry to me, and the tests are cheaper if it turns out the state needs to pay than it is to keep them in prison for another year. The right thing to do is to ensure their convictions by allowing them access to tests they pay for. I would even make it so that if it exonerated them it would be repaid by the state. It is far, far cheaper than keeping them in prison for any longer.

There are several tests that are this inaccurate that have been used in the past. Hair matching is one of them, this crappy shotgun style "DNA" test that they used to use is another. Had he brought it to court and it showed he was one of the 16% of black men it could have been, it certainly wouldn't have exonerated him. Nowadays it is accurate to 1 in a billion... sometimes much higher. That is far better.
Click to expand...

I just think you are missing the bigger picture when it comes to costs. We are talking about the cost of the test, the cost of civil suits, the cost of political careers and egg on proverbial faces. I agree 100% that if someone is incarcerated and is truly innocent there exists no cost that is too much to give him back his freedom.

I understand that the archaic test was not used to convict in this case, but in cases where it was the idea of wrongful prosecution could still exist.
 
meme said:
I don't try to act like i is sum intellectual to prove to myself and other's that I is better and smarter than everyone.. pity you do...
Click to expand...

How sad, a typical right winger...insecure, incurious and dogma driven...

"The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of ones powers along lines of excellence."

"I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction."
President John F. Kennedy
 
tinfoil said:
IT WAS FUCKING AVAILABLE. We can't help that the case was 15 years ago. If every time there's an advancement in DNA technology, do we need to retest every inmate even if they're conviction had not used DNA to convict?
Click to expand...

If YOU were in prison and KNEW you were innocent, what would YOU want the court to do?

Do you place the cost of a laboratory test above the value of a human?

Republicans are not the party of God or family values, they've become the party of war, death, destruction and punishment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top