31–40 of 69 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do more drivers turn right at red lights in the US than in say UK were it is illegal?
The legality of the action is not the only difference between those two locales. A right turn on red is significantly more dangerous in the UK than in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does my reasonable doubt count? The fall guy they pulled in for a raped and murdered jogger in NYC was willing to confess and then was like "woah woah I didn't do the rape where did that charge come from" There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead. Too many examples for me to make that con…
So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?
The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died If the victim has living friends & family, it provides closure. Additionally, solving cases, however old, boosts public confidence that crimes will not go unpunished, which in turn acts as a deterrent for future crime.
The threat of punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent to crime. EDIT: I would have thought this was a well-known issue by now, but for those who are disagreeing, "punishments do not deter crime" is also the opinion of the National Institute of Justice: https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterr...
From other reading I’ve done the consistency of punishment is more important, and it’s better for criminal justice systems to provide a certain small punishment than an inconsistent outsized punishment, and this has a lot to do with the way humans evaluate risks, and improved paths towards helping criminals becoming non-criminals.
Anyway, I learned a bit from the link you posted, mostly that this sort of thinking is mainstream enough to be presented like this by the DoJ. So have my upvote.
What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?
I think the police then track down each of these individuals and establish a motive or an alibi.
But DNA alone shouldn’t convict someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think the accused killers family would be much happier if they found out he didn’t kill either of them, just had sex with the dying girl and left her to die?
That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand. The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
This is in the post he's replying to:
> There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead.
Brock Turner is a well known recent case of rape, the rapist (Brock Turner) sexually assaulted an unconscious woman before two graduate students intervened.
What would happen if I swiped my murder weapon thru rack of clothes in a second hand shop?
Who involved really is better off, after hearing of the ”solution” to this crime? Except for maybe the police department, possibly a detective with an itch to scratch, and definitely the firm used for the genealogical dna profile (mentioned by name in the article), I can think of no one.
It's also PR against some of restrictions on genealogy data some governments are passing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's where your mind went. In this article, it would be just as easy for them to have had consensual sex beforehand. The feelings of the family is not a factor in investigating and prosecuting the right people.
> That's where your mind went This is in the post he's replying to: > There could just as easily be a Brock Turner in the woods seeing an incapacitated girl and fiddling around, except this time the victim would already be or about to be dead. Brock Turner is a well known recent case of rape, the rapist (Brock Turner) sexually assaulted an unconscious woman before two graduate students intervened. https://en.wikipedi…
Its almost impossible to respond except in the way that I did
Half the parent level comments are also saying semen isn't a great for helping with anything except investigating a sexual assault
NPR, totally not a state propaganda organ, runs pro-forensic "science" propaganda. Why does this not surprise me anymore?
Ignoring for a moment the obvious hitch that sperm does not automatically equal murder, there's also the problem that DNA forensics suffers from the same fakery problem that other criminal forensic techniques suffer from especially when samples are old and mixed https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727733-500-fallible... DNA matching from a decades old mixed tissue slide is not an exact process and many factors f…
> I see zero benefit to going through the final steps after they determined that their suspect had already died If the victim has living friends & family, it provides closure. Additionally, solving cases, however old, boosts public confidence that crimes will not go unpunished, which in turn acts as a deterrent for future crime.