Leave a comment

Comments 11

random_walker July 29 2008, 01:36:25 UTC
OK, it wasn't this "very example" of course, but it was an example of the same concept as this very example. Same thing.

Reply


suicide_sam_e July 29 2008, 06:13:35 UTC
I think that DNA "evidence" is, ideally, treated as all evidence. (Although in this case, as you said, it is being over-analyzed to death.) It's just part of a case built to establish guilt. Drawing parallels between the presence of DNA at some suspected crime and the similar DNA profile of a suspected criminal ( ... )

Reply

suicide_sam_e July 29 2008, 06:16:52 UTC
And for a historical perspective, remember that before "DNA" they were convicting people using simple blood typing. (Which is still used as a general paternity test.)

Reply

random_walker July 29 2008, 20:23:26 UTC
The problem here is that, as opposed to blood typing, DNA is incredibly strong evidence with a few possible bugs. That is, apart from atypical populations (which are really kind of a Devil's Advocate argument) and other extremely rare and poorly-documented exceptions it is more-or-less infallible (except for fraud and other deliberate human manipulation). It's so much stronger than blood typing, that to give it proportionally more weight would be to disregard almost everything else.

Reply

suicide_sam_e July 30 2008, 05:14:13 UTC
But you have to compensate for the fallibility of a "jury of peers". Fuck, is "peers" defined loosely in the judicial system. I would wager that to the average American, DNA testing is only slightly above modern witchcraft. (Along with most other dedicated sciences.) Unless joe six-pack and the old lady who's a total shut-in and couldn't get out of jury duty can "look at DNA" themselves, they're probably not going to accept it as a sound method (except possibly on a whim, i.e. "That scientist fellow had nice hair. His testimony is fine with me ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up