Post Conviction DNA Testing

[IWS]

Currently only about 1/2 of the states allow for post conviction DNA testing in criminal convictions.

 

Do you feel that this should be easier to have done?

 

What are the guidelines that should be followed? Should it be allowed in every case with body fluid/DNA evidence, only those without a confession, or only those that the DNA will prove without a doubt, not just bring up "reasonable doubt" that someone is innocent?

[IWS]

My personal opinion is that is should be allowed, but only in cases where this evidence could exonerate a convicted person without any doubt, not just bring up reasonable doubt. The jury already ruled conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond all doubt should be the ONLY way to overturn that.

[jhony5]

My personal opinion is that is should be allowed, but only in cases where this evidence could exonerate a convicted person without any doubt, not just bring up reasonable doubt. The jury already ruled conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond all doubt should be the ONLY way to overturn that.

In rape cases it is more often than not that DNA does the trick. Juries are a joke. They always have been. Prosecutors rely on emotion and people end up being convicted by a preponderance of possibility.

 

I saw a documentary about this issue a few months ago on the Discovery channel. One case involving a husband that was convicted of raping and attempting to murder his own wife. He left, after an argument that was overheard by neighbors, for about 25 minutes to go get fast food and drive off the anger. He went to a Wendy's restaurant, passing the closer one to give him more time, or so he said. When he returned he found his wife near death. Suspicious? Sure seemed that way.

 

The catch is, his wife survived the savage rape and brutal bludgeoning and identified her husband as the attacker in court. In an emotional bullseye, pointing at him as the man that tried to kill her.

 

After about 7 years he managed to get the new DNA technology on his side. After years of bullsh*t red tape and getting the run around, the massive amount of DNA evidence was tested. It wasn't her husbands semen, 100% no doubt not him. Once run through CODIS (national DNA data bank) they immediately got a hit on a big burly black convicted rapist that was currently in prison. The guy confesses as he's already doing life.

 

Apparently his wife sustained so much brain trauma that her memory was completely jumbled and she swore it was her husband. Strangely, even after her husband was released, she still swears he was the man that attacked her.

 

Thing is I've seen dozens of cases just like this. My opinion is that this should be mandatory upon request. If the test is inconclusive or fails, the convict should have to pay the cost of the test back.

 

The Innocence Project:

 

Innocence Project wants more DNA tests for Dallas convicts | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth News | Dallas Morning News

 

Dallas County has more exonerations than any other county in the United States. DNA tests have cleared 14 men since 2001 although one man has yet to be officially exonerated by the courts. Unlike many other counties, Dallas County preserved its evidence following convictions.

Unfortunately, alot of counties throw away the evidence a few years after conviction. Leaving innocent people in prison. I find it far worse to put one innocent man in prison or to death than to let 10 guilty men go free. Our juries are a joke. And we need a moratorium on the death penalty until our federal judicial system can find a way to tighten guidelines for death penalty cases. Making it impossible to seek the death penalty unless very certain key points are met. Such as DNA evidence proving guilt. Heads and corpses in the crawlspace. Ya know, slam-dunk evidence. Our juries often convict on a preponderance of possibility.

[atlantic]

In rape cases it is more often than not that DNA does the trick. Juries are a joke. They always have been. Prosecutors rely on emotion and people end up being convicted by a preponderance of possibility. I saw a documentary about this issue a few months ago on the Discovery channel. One case involving a husband that was convicted of raping and attempting to murder his own wife. He left, after an argument that was overheard by neighbors, for about 25 minutes to go get fast food and drive off the anger. He went to a Wendy's restaurant, passing the closer one to give him more time, or so he said. When he returned he found his wife near death. Suspicious? Sure seemed that way.

 

The catch is, his wife survived the savage rape and brutal bludgeoning and identified her husband as the attacker in court. In an emotional bullseye, pointing at him as the man that tried to kill her.

 

After about 7 years he managed to get the new DNA technology on his side. After years of bullsh*t red tape and getting the run around, the massive amount of DNA evidence was tested. It wasn't her husbands semen, 100% no doubt not him. Once run through CODIS (national DNA data bank) they immediately got a hit on a big burly black convicted rapist that was currently in prison. The guy confesses as he's already doing life.

 

Apparently his wife sustained so much brain trauma that her memory was completely jumbled and she swore it was her husband. Strangely, even after her husband was released, she still swears he was the man that attacked her.

 

Thing is I've seen dozens of cases just like this. My opinion is that this should be mandatory upon request. If the test is inconclusive or fails, the convict should have to pay the cost of the test back.

 

The Innocence Project:

 

Innocence Project wants more DNA tests for Dallas convicts | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas-Fort Worth News | Dallas Morning News

 

Unfortunately, alot of counties throw away the evidence a few years after conviction. Leaving innocent people in prison. I find it far worse to put one innocent man in prison or to death than to let 10 guilty men go free. Our juries are a joke. And we need a moratorium on the death penalty until our federal judicial system can find a way to tighten guidelines for death penalty cases. Making it impossible to seek the death penalty unless very certain key points are met. Such as DNA evidence proving guilt. Heads and corpses in the crawlspace. Ya know, slam-dunk evidence.

 

Our juries often convict on a preponderance of possibility.

Good points, I remember that case, that was so messed up, thank god for DNA in that guy's case.

[Times]

You make some good points Jhony and I agree that changes need to happen but I do not have the gloom and doom view of our court system as you do.

 

Sure, courts are more like going to see a play or movie than real evidence crunching meetings but it goes both ways so is still fair because both sides are playing as many games as possible with the facts.

 

DNA evidence like many new scientific fact gathering now available to modern courts means less assumptions and more facts are being inserted, I think that is a good thing and shows that we are heading into the right direction.

 

I believe new DNA evidence should be considered in old cases that did not have the chance for it but each case should be handled seperately to ensure that people are not just trying to clog the system more then it already is.

 

The only problem I have with the death penalty is we allow too much time to pass before we connect a punnishment with the crime, that time severely reduces the deterrent factor.

 

I have been saying for years that all capital cases should be recorded and one, all inclusive appeal be performed at one time, not one at a time over 15 years just to keep stalling.

 

But that is most likely another topic we could debate.

[jhony5]

I do not have the gloom and doom view of our court system as you do.

Oh. Don't take it that way. I didn't mean to sh*tcan the entirety of our judicial process. It is superior in respect to most' date=' if not all other judicial systems.

Sure, courts are more like going to see a play or movie than real evidence crunching meetings but it goes both ways so is still fair because both sides are playing as many games as possible with the facts.

My biggest issue is the expenditure a prosecution team will go through to try a case. Especially in death penalty cases. Often, the accused is poor and they get handed a public defender with a minuscule budget. Whats worse is these public defenders are often either terribly inexperienced or have a poor track record. Otherwise they wouldn't be public defenders. They would be making the most out of their passing of the states bar exam.A wrongly accused man will have to sit and watch the prosecution parade a battery of top dollar experts throttle him with educated, eloquently worded slander.

 

The only problem I have with the death penalty is we allow too much time to pass before we connect a punnishment with the crime, that time severely reduces the deterrent factor.

Agreed. Get it over with. For everyone involved. I believe in Russia they march you out back and hang and/or shoot you.

[Times]

Do you have any idea how much money was spent to defend Ted Bundy?

 

A guy where there was not one shread of evidence proving he was innocent got millions of dollars to defend himself in both trials and appeals.

 

You see, his last victim was a close family friend, she was one year behind me in school and I had spent time playing with her on many occasions, she was taken from our school on a day just like many other days but it was the day my eyes were opened to the reality of certain monsters in the world that needed to be removed.

 

So, I will always support the death penalty, as do most people who are close to this kind of horrible act while the biggest opposition to the death penalty tend to not have these kinds of close losses in their past.

[snafu]

For sure on anybody on death row. But I yes I think that if the evidence was obtain (correctly) anybody incarcerated should be allowed to DNA testing. If a magistrate believes it is compelling evidence to exonerate the inmate it, the case should be retried immediately.

[jhony5]

So' date=' I will always support the death penalty, as do most people who are close to this kind of horrible act while the biggest opposition to the death penalty tend to not have these kinds of close losses in their past.[/quote']

 

I support the premise of the death penalty. I am nervous about those whom wield the power to prosecute. As well I have no faith at all whatsoever, NONE, in the jury system. Very strict guidelines need to be established to prevent innocent people from being killed by the state in representation of the people. What they have in place now is not sufficient.

 

Eligibility for the death penalty is based on the charges, not the quality of the evidence. People are convicted of first degree murder based on flaky circumstantial evidence and sentenced to die. Later many have been exonerated and released. That is a scary premise.

 

Unfortunately DNA is only useful under specific circumstance. Its spooky to think of all the people that are most definitely sitting on death row right now, as you read this, that are wholly innocent.