Thread: getting away with murder

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I'm having a hard time with your examples.

I was basing it on your example. Please stop changing the conditions (e.g. bringing the victim back to life!)

You said that if a woman was raped and murdered, and blood+semen samples were taken, and years later DNA testing was done that didn't match a guy on death row, then that was proof that the guy was innocent.

I explained the fallacy of that logic by giving examples of how he could be guilty despite that evidence.

It is important to distinguish between proof and "good reason to believe." Sadly many jurors and reporters are totally incapable of making the distinction. And if they can't do that I doubt they fully understand the concept of "reasonable doubt" either. It is very worrying.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

I was basing it on your example. Please stop changing the conditions (e.g. bringing the victim back to life!)

You said that if a woman was raped and murdered, and blood+semen samples were taken, and years later DNA testing was done that didn't match a guy on death row, then that was proof that the guy was innocent.

I explained the fallacy of that logic by giving examples of how he could be guilty despite that evidence.

It is important to distinguish between proof and "good reason to believe." Sadly many jurors and reporters are totally incapable of making the distinction. And if they can't do that I doubt they fully understand the concept of "reasonable doubt" either. It is very worrying.

Wow-we seem to be missing each other's point. You made the claim that DNA testing can't prove innocence. I say it can. Let me try it again with another example. An elderly woman is raped by a masked attacker who she cannot identify. She denies having engaged in consentual sex for decades prior to the attack, and denies any other instances of rape. A man seen running from the apartment complex is apprehended and arrested for the crime. The attacker did not use a condom, and a semen sample taken from the woman is analyzed and its DNA is compared to a DNA sample taken from the accused man. The DNA taken from the victim does not match the DNA of the accused.
Under this set of facts, do you still maintain the DNA test cannot prove the accused man is innocent of the crime?

Take another example. A woman is attacked by a man at night in her bedroom. She cannot identify her attacker. Although she was not raped, she did manage to fight back and bit off a piece of the attacker's ear. An ex-con is spotted roaming the neighborhood shortly after the attack occurs, and is apprenhended by the police, and is charged with the crime. The police are able to recover the piece of ear tissue the victim bit off during the attack. Testing of the ear tissue shows it does not match the DNA of the ex-con who was arrested. Assuming the accuracy of the DNA test, doesn't this eliminate the possibility of the ex-con being the actual perpetrator in this instance?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Under this set of facts, do you still maintain the DNA test cannot prove the accused man is innocent of the crime?

You said the key words yourself: "Under this set of facts."
The DNA test on its own proves little. Only when you combine it with other evidence can you form a conclusion.

You've given examples where innocence can be reasonably assumed. I've given examples where it cannot.

Now, do you agree that blanket statements like "The DNA proved he was guilty" or "The DNA proved he was innocent" are dangerously vague?

Some people take DNA tests way too seriously, it's almost like a religion to them. The words "DNA match" are enough for them to decide guilt. I hope you and I never have to face a jury made up of such people.

"Now, do you agree that blanket statements like "The DNA proved he was guilty" or "The DNA proved he was innocent" are dangerously vague?"
---No I don't. DNA is evidence. It can prove either innocence or guilt in certain circumstances, as per my examples.

"Some people take DNA tests way too seriously, it's almost like a religion to them. The words "DNA match" are enough for them to decide guilt. I hope you and I never have to face a jury made up of such people."

--I have no idea what you have in mind when you refer to "some people". If we're talking about those involved in the criminal justice system (prosecutors, defense attys, forensic experts) I daresay they would be nearly unanimous in terms of accepting DNA evidence as highly reliable, more so than blood samples or finger print or eyewitness testimony. And if I was (falsely) accused of committing a crime, I would certainly have no problem with the use of DNA evidence.

If your point is that DNA evidence can be used to prove an erroneous fact, resulting in a wrongful conviction, well, I understand that could happen. But the same can be said as to ANY evidence-blood, finger print, eyewitness-you name it. The point I was trying to make is that there are many, many cases where people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit, and where their innocence can now be proven thru DNA testing, which testing did not exist at the time of their original conviction (again, see my prior examples).