posted
Of course DNA testing is fallible. Just like anything else. The question is how fallible. When done properly, DNA testing will be correct in well over 99% of cases, and that's before retesting (most fallibility in DNA testing is due to testing errors, which are generally accounted for by doing the same test multiple times with different equipment and technicians).
It is, notably, more accurate than any other law enforcement tool (well, except for catching someone in the act, and even that's wrong sometimes).
If you take a look here you will find more information: Hayes got a retrial because a faulty method for analyzing DNA was used. At the retrial, it came out that the hair the victim was clutching was from a white man. Hayes is black. That page does not indicate how the hair was analyzed.
Of course DNA testing is not perfect, and I'm nost suggesting it is. But if DNA testing says someone is innocent, that will in almost all cases cause reasonable doubt, for the simple reason that DNA testing is highly accurate. It's far, far more accurate than a witness coming forward where there had been no witnesses before and saying he saw the crime and someone totally unlike the accused did it, for instance, and that will generally get a person reasonable doubt.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I will admit to a belief that anti-capital punishment activists might deliberately arrange for DNA evidence to be falsified, though I do not claim that this has ever happened. (It may have.) It would be a natural thing to do if someone believes strongly enough that human life should never be ended intentionally.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I agree that DNA testing is very accurate when done properly. My link was more towards refuting the idea that the justice system is at a point where it is so free from error that we can depend on it to put people to death. Certainly it should be evidence that no death sentence should be carried out quickly.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I fully agree with that SS, I was responding to Maccabeus' post. My position is that there are possibly cases where the death penalty is theoretically justified-- but that are current system of handing out the death penalty is heinously flawed and must be ceased immediately before further injustices are done, to be only possibly revisited after years of consideration.
I suspect this isn't too terribly far from your position, SS.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, my position is that virtually the whole justice system is flawed from top to bottom. So, no, your position on the death penalty in particular is not far from mine as the the death penalty is just one example of how screwed up our justice system is. I mean, considering that most cases don't recieve anything near the scrutiny that capital punishment cases do, it makes you wonder how many poor innocent bastards are in jail right now who had to rely on the pathetic public defender's office(IF a state has one) or some dial-a-lawyer.
One idea that I've never seen proposed that I'd like to ask here is, what would happen if we made the entire criminal justice system, both prosecution and defense, a state funded enterprise? If everyone had to use the same pool of lawyers, wouldn't that mean that everyone would recieve the same degree of legal coverage? I have to say, I think that the justice system might be one of the few places that I think a socialist approach would be optimal.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, our justice system is seriously flawed. However, since without a justice system things would certainly be worse (unlike in the case of the death penalty) I don't want the immediate abolition of the current system.
While there are some possibly major kinks in your system (and loopholes), it's definitely something to work for.
As a less drastic measure, I think laws mandating the salaries of public defenders be based on market rates would be an effective way to quickly boost the quality and number of public defenders (provided budgets contained adequate funding).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not advocating the abolishment of the justice system.
The problem with only paying for public defenders under the current system, which is to say, lawyers used exclusively for those 'too poor' to pay, is that people who do have to pay will feel like they are getting the shaft, and in all reality, they probably will be getting the shaft. The quality of your defense should *not* be based upon your ability to pay, it seems to me, no more than the military protection that a state gets should be limited to the average income level of the inhabitants. Further, what is the inducement for taxpayers to pay for a service they aren't going to use?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...if all lawyers were paid for by the public...(tries to think this out)...
Wouldn't that make the system worse? Instead of a few Joe Schmoes having to rely on clowns who barely know what they're doing, everyone would have to put up with them. While this might reduce the number of lawsuits I do not think this would lead to better service of justice.
Perhaps I simply have too much faith in the validity of free exchange: you get what you pay for.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it would require that the government pay more to do that, and to achieve optimal performance would require a fair simulacrum of the invisible hand (though with some differences, as an external social good is involved, which complicates things).
It could definitely be done, given money and thought.
The current system suffers for two reasons: public defenders are underpaid, and held to insufficient standards. They have little incentive either in the form of money or negative incentives (ie being fired) to perform well.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget seriously understaffed. Even if you pay two lawyers a million bucks each and hold them to the highest standards, if they simply don't have enough time to defend their clients adequately, then they're going to have to plea bargain 99 percent of their cases away, rather than go to trial, which is what you have now.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, staffing would be an issue, and would also be highly reliant on "market" conditions. Luckily staffing is rather easier to calculate than pay rates.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will people be willing to pay higher taxes to increase pay for public defenders? Many people already believe their taxes are too high, and will prefer to rely on their own innocence to avoid being prosecuted in the first place.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a suspicion that were all lawyers publicly funded many of the very rich would be remarkably accomodating about paying more taxes for the purpose. Ignoring any innuendoes I may be making, the very rich tend to understand the value of good insurance.
Also, the additional amount required would frankly not be all that much if certain other reasonable reforms were made in the judicial system. *mutters a little about victimless crimes*
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many people already believe their taxes are too high, and will prefer to rely on their own innocence to avoid being prosecuted in the first place.
Yeah, see that is one of the problems. Imagine their surprise when they, being innocent and all, are given the death penalty.
I actually think you are wrong about why people would prefer to rely on their innocence. It's cause they're white and they know that the likelihood of them being charged with a crime they didn't commit is remote. Of course, that didn't help Darlie Routier any, but. . .
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This discussion reminds me of the old political saying: someone who has just been mugged becomes a Republican, and someone falsely accused who has just spent the night in jail becomes a Democrat.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
