|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 12, 2011 15:28:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 12, 2011 15:33:01 GMT -5
At first I thought this was a site for abstience and virginity...
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2011 15:34:26 GMT -5
BS how? The idea of such an organization is not BS and the idea that DNA is not infallible is also not BS. The school of law it is affiliated with is however on the up and up. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo_School_of_LawAnd the project itself has been in the news so I would say it's pretty legit. Though I do wonder how they do business and get the convictions overturned and everything like that. They don't really give a step-by-step detail of how they get people exonerated, though. Hm. |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 12, 2011 15:41:01 GMT -5
Why are all the names on there male? Don't women get wrongfully convicted?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2011 15:42:40 GMT -5
Why are all the names on there male? Don't women get wrongfully convicted? Their FAQ answers that better- Q. Are any of the exonerees women? A. Four of the first 250 DNA exonerees are women; most DNA cases involve sex crimes or violent physical struggles, which most often are perpetrated by men. I don't really want to make this into a women vs men potential to do harm thing tho. >.> |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 12, 2011 15:46:04 GMT -5
DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2011 15:47:54 GMT -5
DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. I never said it wasn't good. I merely said it wasn't infallible like people want to claim. In fact, I had a guest speaker in my criminal justice class who said we should rely only on DNA because it was that good. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 12, 2011 15:49:48 GMT -5
DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. I never said it wasn't good. I merely said it wasn't infallible like people want to claim. In fact, I had a guest speaker in my criminal justice class who said we should rely only on DNA because it was that good. That's silly, that speaker is silly. DNA testing can be thwarted with bad collection technique, rare conditions like chimerism, sloppy lab procedure, or corruption of the techs. You probably know this, but others may not. ETA: I probably should have said this earlier, but I think that DNA testing may well be the most reliable form of evidence and the organization using it as their standard does make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2011 15:52:04 GMT -5
I never said it wasn't good. I merely said it wasn't infallible like people want to claim. In fact, I had a guest speaker in my criminal justice class who said we should rely only on DNA because it was that good. That's silly, that speaker is silly. DNA testing can be thwarted with bad collection technique, rare conditions like chimerism, sloppy lab procedure, or corruption of the techs. You probably know this, but others may not. ETA: I probably should have said this earlier, but I think that DNA testing may well be the most reliable form of evidence and the organization using it as their standard does make sense. I blame CSI, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Aug 12, 2011 15:54:47 GMT -5
I was only asking because it was on Fox News.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 12, 2011 16:03:02 GMT -5
DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. It's as close to infallible as you'll get on this Earth. DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. I never said it wasn't good. I merely said it wasn't infallible like people want to claim. In fact, I had a guest speaker in my criminal justice class who said we should rely only on DNA because it was that good. That's not unreasonable. DNA is at least based in science. Othr kinds of forensic 'science', including fingerprints, are not science and will often show false positives or negatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 12, 2011 16:05:07 GMT -5
DNA testing may not be infallible, but it is one of the better forms of evidence in the criminal justice system. It's as close to infallible as you'll get on this Earth. We can still do better. Especially if the process can be automated to remove human sloppiness. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Aug 12, 2011 16:06:36 GMT -5
That's silly, that speaker is silly. DNA testing can be thwarted with bad collection technique, rare conditions like chimerism, sloppy lab procedure, or corruption of the techs. You probably know this, but others may not. ETA: I probably should have said this earlier, but I think that DNA testing may well be the most reliable form of evidence and the organization using it as their standard does make sense. I blame CSI, myself. Me too. It says a lot about our culture that jurors regularly have less than no idea about how catching criminals works. At least if they were actually ignorant they wouldn't have as many dangerous preconceptions, but instead they have made-for-TV ideas of criminal investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Aug 12, 2011 16:07:18 GMT -5
I was only asking because it was on Fox News. Ah. Yeah. It seems legit enough. Though I'm worried about their so-called numbers of exonerated. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Aug 12, 2011 16:10:32 GMT -5
Me too. It says a lot about our culture that jurors regularly have less than no idea about how catching criminals works. At least if they were actually ignorant they wouldn't have as many dangerous preconceptions, but instead they have made-for-TV ideas of criminal investigation.  |
|
