That's a rather risky procedure to get off a speeding ticket.Originally Posted by MSTRS
What the police don't know is my girlfriend is 5% Finn DNA. Took a lot of work.
Guest
That's a rather risky procedure to get off a speeding ticket.
What the police don't know is my girlfriend is 5% Finn DNA. Took a lot of work.
The instructions are simple...
Did you miss the lack of an 'r' in 'bone'?
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Forum whore
Perhaps so. But there is much more likelihood of data being 'massaged' when it's all in a nice database. "OK we got some DNA from the crime scene. Let's see what the database shows. Hm, that guy looks close. Closeish anyway. And I know that cunt I've been waiting to get him for ages. Yeah, that DNA match is pretty close. In a bad light. Jury won't argue anyway" .My understanding is that DD was convicted on the basis of (deliberately?) mis-interpreting DNA evidence. Any type of science is only as reliable and honest as those technicians, officials etc who are using the results. You could make similar statements about any type of evidence e.g. planting physical evidence at the scene of a crime, making evidence "disappear". Anything is possible where corruption is present.
Personally, if I were falsely accused of a crime, I'd rather they had the means to prove me innocent using DNA evidence than not
At present they have to have some reason to connect a person with the crime. Or they're looking at someone with a criminal record, which is at least some grounds for suspicion.
And people get arrested for all sorts of non-criminal reasons. You certainly can't say that anyone arrested is a criminal. Protesters and demonstrators for a start. Think of all the (very respectable) people arrested during the Springbok demonstrations.
Oggi Tester
Absolutely, which is why I wouldn't be in favour of wholesale dna sample collection from every individual who was arrested for something. Convictions, on the other hand....
The ability to give a voluntary dna sample to prove you were innocent of a crime in the event that the police had samples to compare it to would be a good thing. Although, in some cases science cannot disprove something, but only prove IYGWIM?
"I's no' a bobike (motorbike) - i's a scooter!" - MsKABC's son, aged 2 years.
Forum whore
A DNA sample from those CONVICTED is the current situation . The PROPOSAL is that DNA should be taken from every person ARRESTED.
In the case of DNA testing science can only DISprove, not prove. A scientist may be able to say "This DNA did not come from that person". But cannot (usually) say "This DNA definitely did come from that person". At best "There is a good probability that the DNA came form that person. But it *could* have come from someone else". Of course this will always be presented to the jury as "Scientific evidence proves that the DNA came from the accused".
Forum whore
There's a point - it's all a conspiracy to undermine the very fabric of the society that we live in so as to control all that we do.
I would rather have people like Malcolm Rewa, Joseph Thompson or Jules Mikus behind bars. Ask the families or their victims how they feel about DNA samples being taken. All these men and other rapists, murderers and scum have been rightfully convicted using DNA tests.
We as a society are right to question the integrity of the justice system but not to the point where there is no justice for the victims. It's bad enough that rightfully convicted criminals have only to serve a third of their sentence. I would far rather convict 1 innocent man (even it was me - and yes I would fight to clear my name) than let 10 (more) scumbags walk the streets preying on my family or friends.
They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the evening,
we will remember them
Salted Pork
Really what is the difference between taking fingerprints upon arrest, (which currently happens) and taking a saliva swab for the DNA databank? If the person is acquitted the prints get shredded and likewise their DNA profile would be removed.
Salted Pork
Yep, DNA profiling saved his arse nicely. From a contemporary point of view if someone was to go through the same process now they would be exonerated immediately rather than being imprisoned for years.
Salted Pork
Preferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.
Salted Pork
Doherty was pardoned based on the DNA evidence that wasn't able to be analysed at the time he was convicted.
Loving life in the Bay
The new law invites fishing expeditions without just cause.
Cop 1: I'm sure this guy has done some shit. We just can't connect him to anything. Slippery bugger.
Cop 2: Hey, I know. Lets push his buttons. When he bites we'll arrest him for disorderly whatever. When the DNA results come back we'll have him for sure.
At the moment the Police have to prove to a judge that taking a DNA sample is justified before the fishing can commence.
IDKWTFITA
Loving life in the Bay
+1 we can live in hopePreferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.
seaboat captin
oh that comment so provides me confidence with the 5/0.......unless you've retired of course...
Hater of haters since 2012
LOOK.. ZOMBIES!
meh .. the FBI, DoD and the CIA have had access to my DNA for decades ..
not stressed over the NZPD having it if they want it ..its like giving it to the Sea Scouts
Forum whore
Well the police got Doherty wrong and no doubt you were as cock sure of his guilt then as you are of Watson's now.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks