CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

[Softus]

Softus what about a D,N,A conviction ? if some one who's d,n,a match's up with a little girl who's been you know what, then murdered. then there is no argument if he/she did or not do it. yes or no ? if you state yes, then why do you write ( it is not possible to convict a murder beyond all doubt ) ps i know what your responce is going to be

Hi markie

A reasonable question, to which I have an answer, although if you know it already then it seems a bit superfluous

Firstly, DNA evidence. There is no such thing as a "match up" using a DNA sample. Whilst the national database is in the throes of an upgrade in the accuracy of the profiling process, and the attendant accuracy of the resultant measurement, is it not possible, nor has it ever been possible, to say that any given sample is from a particular individual.

The way that DNA evidence is presented in court has been the subject of revision and refinement since the early days when it was falsely known as "DNA fingerprinting". The extraction and measurement of the DNA strands performed by the Forensic Science Service is a skilled and relative measurement against a control sample. The correct way to describe the evidence is to express it arithmetically as the frequency of the occurrence of a particular set of DNA strands in the general population. Hence the measurement yields a likelihood that a particular suspect's DNA, if it's sufficiently similar, would be found in an otherwise randomly selected member of the population.

This is why there is always an argument (aka trial) to determine whether or not a given suspect is guilty, hence DNA evidence cannot be used to convict without other evidence.

Therefore it is not possible to secure a conviction that is beyond all doubt.

 

[markie]

Softus i bet you have just looked that up on the net

 

[Softus]

Softus i bet you have just looked that up on the net

Well, you have just lost your money. The statistics involved in DNA evidence is one of my special interests

 

[Moz]

markie

then in 20 yrs time we find that DNA is NOT the GREAT 1/1000000 we are told an 1/100 ...
fingerprints are questioned in court an TRUE/SAME copies are produced when no other evidence is there ..FACT !!!!
dont tell me ...or I will get a sniper rifle an get that cretin in the licked cross hairs ..

that B'liars govt won't to kill people more than they do by the USA jetting English people around the globe to be tortured an killed ... NOT IN MY NAME ..WHATEVER THEY SCREAM AS DYING THEY DID TO STOP THE TERROR......

CLIMBS the Westminister Clock Tower an sets up ready ....

tic f**kin Toc ... lets take that bast88ds head clean off with a 7.62 mm round ...

 

[markie]

Moz can they match up sperm ?

 

[Softus]

fingerprints are questioned in court an TRUE/SAME copies are produced when no other evidence is there ..FACT !!!!

Not fact.

In any case, fingerprint evidence is not the same as DNA profile evidence.

 

[markie]

Softus Posted the sperm thing to moz instead of you

 

[Moz]

in the gold case ,an ex armed robber from the 80s .. erm the john somebody noye , his finger prints ONLY EVIDENCE were thrown out of court after the defense , showed similiar prints by 7 different people ... juries know coppers are bent/lie ...

as the police wanted him nailed they sat in his garden armed to the teeth awaiting him .... a cop was shot dead by him .. again it was said the police went too entrap him ..an he was released
it took a bloke attacking him in a road rage fury off the motorway an him battering him ,
for him to be finally sent down ..as police wanted all the time


he is up parole soon ...lol.. free too the Gold an High life ...

 

[Moz]

Softus Posted the sperm thing to moz instead of you

thanks very much .. you dirty ...dirty ..dirty DEVIL ..lol

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't agree. The argument against the DP is also a logical one, viz:

1a) If it is wrong to kill an innocent person, then it is wrong to kill a murderer, because the chain of murder is then never-ending.

The DP supporters will not see that as logic, they will simply say that a person who kills is not an "innocent person" and therefore it is OK to kill them. They do not class the execution as murder, and they do not accept the moral position.

1b) It is not possible to convict a murderer beyond all doubt, merely beyond reasonable doubt. The startlingness, and quantity, of unsafe convictions under the current criminal justice system is sufficient evidence that the system is not yet mature enough for the remaining doubt to be sufficiently small and/or infrequent.

They'll wriggle on about advances in technology, and how some cases are beyond doubt, and ultimately, shamefully, a lot of them will make the appalling argument that it doesn't matter anyway, because executing a few innocent people is a price worth paying because overall fewer innocent people get killed that way - e.g. if the DP prevents (by deterrent effect or stopping re-offending) 10 murders a year but costs 1 innocent life a year then we are 9 victims better off.

Well, whilst I do agree that the effectiveness of the message is proportional to the number of people conveying it, the size of the consensus is a different attribute to the content of the message and the manner of conveying it.

It's different but linked, and 20,000 people saying "you disgusting slimeball" is a more forceful message than 20,000 people saying "oh, I say, that's not very nice".

It's the shouting that's the problem - in my experience it never, ever, changes anyone's mind; instead it makes them more resolute in their own opinion.

Probably true, but it's rare for the hang-em/flog-em revenge killer brigade to change their mind through reasoned debate anyway.

I want them to feel loathed.

So do I. So I can't help but wonder why it manifests itself in a different way.

Everyone is different, I guess....

I don't know if Masona is still reading this topic, but I'd be very interested to know why he changed his mind, for the same reason that AIDS survivors are pawed over by scientists to find out the miraculous cause of their rare gift.

I imagine he was never actually one of the "violent revenge" crowd.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because I feel it would put me on the same level as the murderer if they are put to death penalty which isn't in my nature to kill people, I couldn't do it, so the fairest way is to lock them up for life by throwing away the keys. The problem is that people want the death penalty because maybe there's no justice for the crime and feel anger which I did at the time, BAS has made me think again.

Thank you, masona, for showing that debate can sometimes work, and giving me hope that it is worthwhile trying.

And for a pointed lesson that reacting in anger works both ways

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Softus i bet you have just looked that up on the net

And what if he had?

What do you do - just base your position/posts/arguments on what you think you can remember about stuff you might have heard, rather than researching the facts?

 

[DDoyle]

I have to admit that I am in the pro-camp with respect to the death penalty, however having read the sensible comments in this thread, and also looking some facts up for myself, I am persuaded that with current technology and the make up/failings of our current criminal justice system, the death penalty should not be an option at this time.

I do feel that we should allow the deabate within society to continue on occasion though. Technology changes rapidly, and perhaps it may be possible to identfy an invidual beyond all reasonable doubt in the future, although I do accept this is a long way off if it is ever possible.

My last comment would be to say that if the death penalty were to be re-introduced then it could not be done so for a specific type of murder, ie: Police Officer or child. Murder is murder, and the penalty, regardless of the existance of a death penalty, should be the same for all. However at this time, such thoughts of the death penalty should be put on the back shelf.

 

[Richardp]

Its good that you can be so honest, to be pro killing is a difficult one to get your head around and sometimes we find out things about ourselves that are not always nice.

 

[hermes]

Murder is murder, and the penalty, regardless of the existance of a death penalty, should be the same for all..

That is nonsense and we have been through it before. The murder of a spouse after years of physical and/or mental abuse is not the same as the murder of a young child or the murder of a pensioner for a few quid. This is reflected in the discretion available to judges when it comes to sentencing.