21–30 of 119 posts
This story isn't even about DNA evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but technically the jury are the ones who convicted.
I would argue the jury was lied to here. Having been a juror on a murder trial, I witnessed first hand how much people are willing to believe prosecutors. In my case there were very obvious timeline issues and jurors just looked past it without a second thought.
This is workable for everyday situation, not so much in situations like a trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue the jury was lied to here. Having been a juror on a murder trial, I witnessed first hand how much people are willing to believe prosecutors. In my case there were very obvious timeline issues and jurors just looked past it without a second thought.
It seems that many of the smart people have excuses to get out of jury duty, potentially skewing the pool to the low side. Although it's also possible that many of the smarter people who are selected have biases they aren't aware of or don't want to know about.
A lot of what the article is saying makes sense, but I really wish the reporter had pushed a bit harder on Hampikian. He conducted a study to show that mixed DNA analysis can falsely exclude people, but are there similar studies that confirm the complex strategies he's exploring in the Tapp case can't falsely exclude people? "Civil rights advocates object to [familial DNA] because it means that simply being related t…
Frankly, they had no probable cause to compell a DNA sample from that guys son. Probable cause is supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has committed the crime. That's clearly not the case as it could be anyone in that family, and with multiple suspects it's not 'more likely than not' that the individual is guilty. Instead the courts allow fishing trips.
[flagged]
We’ve had numerous cases here where prosecutors declined to press charges or gave a small amount of time as part of a sweetheart plea deal, and the criminal went on and killed someone. We’ve also had cases where the judge let a violent criminal out before trial and they killed someone. Should we make the judges and prosecutors culpable in those situations as well? If you have strong penalties for the criminal justice…
Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.
I think there's more work we can do to balance the power of individual defendants against the state, but the adversarial justice system is the most accurate and effective system for mediating public safety, punishment, and revenge ever developed in the history of the world.
For ever Dollar a government gives to the prosecutors office, a dollar should be budgeted for public defense.
currently in most states is like 10%, if that
Evidence handling and testing should not be under the control of police, or even prosecution. Incentives need to be aligned toward justice, not convictions.
See also: > The Phantom of Heilbronn, often alternatively referred to as the "Woman Without a Face", was a hypothesized unknown female serial killer whose existence was inferred from DNA evidence found at numerous crime scenes in Austria, France and Germany from 1993 to 2009. The six murders among these included that of police officer Michèle Kiesewetter, in Heilbronn, Germany on 25 April 2007. > The only connection…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's more work we can do to balance the power of individual defendants against the state, but the adversarial justice system is the most accurate and effective system for mediating public safety, punishment, and revenge ever developed in the history of the world.
The main concern here is that the system is being nearly entirely bypassed. Literally 98% of cases plea out^1, bypassing the entire system of court procedure that is supposed to resolve these issues. 1: https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...
i.e a prosecutor should not be allowed to plead out a felony to a misdemeanor, that should be by default viewed as unethically coercive