It's time to bring the death penalty back!

[#juan]

Hmmmmmmmmm, so you are tellling me that a completely innocent person would plant his semen to lead the investigation away from the real perpetrator?????????

I don't think you would plant your own semen. Obviously this kind of evidence planting would have to be done by someone with access to semen samples and the victim's body. I once read a crime novel where the bad guy, a serial rapist, got hold of a fresh, discarded, used condom and he planted that semen on a few of his victims. The results were devastating for the guy who discarded the condom.

 

[JLM]

I don't think you would plant your own semen. Obviously this kind of evidence planting would have to be done by someone with access to semen samples and the victim's body. I once read a crime novel where the bad guy, a serial rapist, got hold of a fresh, discarded, used condom and he planted that semen on a few of his victims. The results were devastating for the guy who discarded the condom.

Yeah, I could see that sort of thing happening in novels, but in real life a little far fetched don't you think?

 

[JLM]

S.J.P. Please answer the question I asked you in post # 414.

 

[#juan]

Yeah, I could see that sort of thing happening in novels, but in real life a little far fetched don't you think?

I don't know...........My wife and I once checked into a hotel room early just to drop our luggage off and in the waste basket, right on top, was a used condom. The room hadn't been cleaned yet but I can think of three or four people who could have had access to that condom.

 

[TenPenny]

Yeah, I could see that sort of thing happening in novels, but in real life a little far fetched don't you think?

Oh, I don't know. It seemed to me that during the OJSimpson trial, the police testified that they made up evidence when they 'thought' the accused was guilty, especially if he was black.

Although it was bizarre, I'm pretty sure the OJ Simpson trial wasn't a novel.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why would you ask why I think D.N.A. is present only in semen? OF COURSE I know it's present in the other things you mention. Could you please just answer my question? Of course I know there are instances where D.N.A. could be planted. In the case of semen on a child's genitalia (germaine to crimes of pedaphilia) how could it be "planted"?

I thought we are discussing death penalty (and how foolproof DNA evidence is) here, and not semen and child’s genitalia. Regardless of whether semen can be planted, the fact is, it is not at all difficult to plant somebody’s DNA at the scene of a crime.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Hmmmmmmmmm, so you are tellling me that a completely innocent person would plant his semen to lead the investigation away from the real perpetrator?????????

Not a completely innocent person. But a smart perpetrator or a crooked cop would.

 

[JLM]

Not a completely innocent person. But a smart perpetrator or a crooked cop would.

I'll grant you that but what if it's corroborated with photography, eye witnesses, the vicitm's D.N.A. on the suspect?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll grant you that but what if it's corroborated with photography, eye witnesses, the vicitm's D.N.A. on the suspect?

So you don’t’ think that DNA evidence is a magic bullet. That is good (evidently at one time you did feel that way). Totality of evidence must be considered. If there is no magic bullet, if the jury must weigh all the evidence, then there is definitely a possibility of wrongful conviction and of executing the wrong criminal.

 

[JLM]

So you don’t’ think that DNA evidence is a magic bullet. That is good (evidently at one time you did feel that way). Totality of evidence must be considered. If there is no magic bullet, if the jury must weigh all the evidence, then there is definitely a possibility of wrongful conviction and of executing the wrong criminal.

Of course D.N.A. is a "magic bullet" and I feel the same about it today as I always did- nothing is any different now- we've always known that it is crucial the D.N.A. be that of the perpetrator and we've always known that the D.N.A. must be tested correctly and not cross contaminated- ANY IDIOT knows that stuff. Like any tool a certain amount of diligence is necessary. You do whatever is necessary to get accurate results. In life I guess there is nothing that is 100% so I guess someone has to decide how many decimal points after the 99. is adequate for acceptibility.

 

[AnnaG]

DNA evidence can easily be planted at the scene of the crime, Risus. All it needs is one clever murderer or one crooked cop. DNA evidence is not foolproof, it is not the magic bullet as some seem to think.

:roll: DNA is incontrovertible. It's the handling of it that is occasionally messed up. It's like fingerprints; they can be copied and placed at a scene, smudged to be unreadable, fingerprint data lost, etc. but the fingerprint itself is unmistakably unique. And there are checks in place to minimize the errors even farther.
Some scientist you are. lmao

 

[JLM]

:roll: DNA is incontrovertible. It's the handling of it that is occasionally messed up. It's like fingerprints; they can be copied and placed at a scene, smudged to be unreadable, fingerprint data lost, etc. but the fingerprint itself is unmistakably unique. And there are checks in place to minimize the errors even farther.
Some scientist you are. lmao

The message I've tried to convey but you have much more elegantly. Now everyone should get the drift.....................:lol::lol::lol:

 

[TenPenny]

:roll: DNA is incontrovertible. It's the handling of it that is occasionally messed up. It's like fingerprints; they can be copied and placed at a scene, smudged to be unreadable, fingerprint data lost, etc. but the fingerprint itself is unmistakably unique. And there are checks in place to minimize the errors even farther.
Some scientist you are. lmao

Okay, so you're agreeing that DNA evidence can be manipulated (planted/faked/etc), and you use this as a reason to disagree with SJP for saying the same thing?

 

[JLM]

Okay, so you're agreeing that DNA evidence can be manipulated (planted/faked/etc), and you use this as a reason to disagree with SJP for saying the same thing?

I have to jump to Anna's defence on this one, she merely pointed out correctly (as I have for sometime) that D.N.A. is infallable (to the degree of one in several billion, anyway), it's the people involved with it and those trying to manipute the interpretation who are not.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course D.N.A. is a "magic bullet" and I feel the same about it today as I always did- nothing is any different now- we've always known that it is crucial the D.N.A. be that of the perpetrator and we've always known that the D.N.A. must be tested correctly and not cross contaminated- ANY IDIOT knows that stuff. Like any tool a certain amount of diligence is necessary. You do whatever is necessary to get accurate results. In life I guess there is nothing that is 100% so I guess someone has to decide how many decimal points after the 99. is adequate for acceptibility.

I see, so according to you, there is what, 99.9999% probability that DNA evidence won’t be planted? And just how do you arrive at that figure?

I don’t know what is the probability that DNA will be planted at the murder scene. But I know that the probability is finite, and that probability disqualifies DNA from being the magic bullet.

But to claim that there is 99.9999% probability that DNA won’t be planted (without any basis to it) is stretching it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I have to jump to Anna's defence on this one, she merely pointed out correctly (as I have for sometime) that D.N.A. is infallable (to the degree of one in several billion, anyway), it's the people involved with it and those trying to manipute the interpretation who are not.

It is fallible much more than that, JLM. DNA evidence is unique to an individual and in that sense it could be considered to be infallible. However, there is the possibility of DNA evidence being planted at the scene of the crime and from that point of view, DNA evidence is very fallible.

 

[JLM]

I see, so according to you, there is what, 99.9999% probability that DNA evidence won’t be planted? And just how do you arrive at that figure?

I don’t know what is the probability that DNA will be planted at the murder scene. But I know that the probability is finite, and that probability disqualifies DNA from being the magic bullet.

But to claim that there is 99.9999% probability that DNA won’t be planted (without any basis to it) is stretching it.

The four 9s after the decimal are yours not mine, but using your figures 99.9999 isn't good enough eh? Okay we know that a prisoner locked up has a small chance of escaping or being let out by mistake to reoffend. Using your figures lets use the reverse and say the chance is 0.0001% that he will take another victim. Is that figure also unacceptable to you?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That 99.9999% is your figure JLM, not mine. You said that the probability that DNA evidence is correct is 99 followed by a few 9s, I didn’t say that.

And as I have already said, that figure is nonsense. The probability of evidence being planted at the scene of the crime is probably lot greater than that.

 

[JLM]

"That 99.9999% is your figure JLM, not mine. You said that the probability that DNA evidence is correct is 99 followed by a few 9s, I didn’t say that. "

If you read my post #430 again you will see that statement is incorrect.

 

[Starscream]

There wasn't, nor was there a mention of the charge, so naturally I felt I couldn't correctly make any assumptions, but the thought crossed my mind due to the apparent disgust at the sentence that possibly murder had been committed. Hope that clears things up.

The victim survived, and had to get surgery to repair the damage. My co-worker mentioned she was charged with assault with a weapon, fleeing the scene of a crime, and I think one more but I can't remember what the charge was. In any case, she stabbed a person and pretty much got off scot free. The prosecution wanted jail time (which of course she deserved), but the judge didn't agree for some reason.