Guilty by evidence of DNA..therefore OK to execute if 100% sure..discuss?

Answer 1

Depends on the crime, premeditated murder, serious rape, cop killers, are some crimes which might warrant a death penalty. Only problem is that even with DNA testing they still get the wrong man, happens in America.

Also, in the states that have death penalty there is no evidence it helps to reduce crime.

Best to lock them up for years with no hope of remission and no luxuries, makes it hard on the warders as they get the prisoners with no hope to deal with but there is no solution that ticks all the boxes that need to be ticked completely

Answer 2

DNA can only suggest guilt, it can't be absolute proof. Here are some scenarios:

1. The prosecutor (or more likely the police) fake the evidence.
2. The lab is incompetent or crooked.
3. The samples have been compromised -- sometimes for the simple reason that the containers weren't washed properly (the same source of contamination that has caused women to have their eggs fertilised by the wrong man's sperm in IVF)
4. The defense lawyer is incompetent and didn't object to faulty use of the evidence -- or to the defectiveness of it. We don't all get a defense team like O.J. Simpson's, and the innocent get convicted quite as easily as the guilty get acquitted.
5. There are several DNA test systems, some (more recent ones) more thorough than others. The chance of a false positive varies with the nature of the test and the integrity of the tester. There is a tendency to exaggerate the accuracy and to deny the possibility of error. But we often see such myths played out, as we did with the notorious charlatan Sir Roy Meadows who broke up family after family and sent grieving mothers of SIDS babies to prison with his lying testimony about Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, about Child Abuse and about the certainty of his conclusions.

On the other hand, an appeal of conviction is a different matter. In an appeal, the defendant (appellant) is trying to prove that the judicial system (or part of it) was defective. This attack on the integrity of the judicial system is naturally resisted by all the other players, so the defendant is at a disadvantage. S/he has the burden of proof. The Innocence Project and other similar ones play an important role in demolishing the myth that judges are always impartial and that prosecutors and police are disinterested and honest. But the presumption is that a convicted person is guilty. If DNA cannot positively show factual innocence, then the issue of whether execution should proceed is a political one and not a legal one -- assuming the absence of other legal issues (such as consular notification, age of the convict at the time of the crime, and so on).

Answer 3

You can never be 100% certain. DNA can be used to prove innocence or suggest guilt but alone nothing can prove guilt. You must build a case with lots of evidence.

Personally I think it is justified to execute only if you are both very certain of guilt and also have reason to believe that the person would be a threat to society if they were ever released from prison. I think the criminally insane should be executed for example. It is the opposite of how we do it now. If you can prove you're insane they put you in an asylum. Why? What's the point of keeping them alive? So we can risk them escaping and killing again? So they can try to kill our healthcare workers we need taking care of our physically sick? Its just stupid. Its equally stupid and also cruel to kill someone for what may have been self-defense, a one-time crime unlikely to reoccur while those people get to live.

Answer 4

No you have to be very careful. Although they tell us that DNA is very accurate, it is not 100% accurate. There is 0.1% chance that it can be inaccurate. Even if it is a very small chance... there is still a chance that it is inaccurate. And in identical twins...... the chances are much higher!!! So DNA evidence should be relied on heavily but not entirely.

And about execution? I am not too sure. It depends on the case. I mean if a person killed some one in self-defence and they are executed......... whats the point? They might have as well been murdered by the "victim". They were trying to save themselves... and now all their attempts have been washed down the drain!!

Answer 5

It's possible to steal DNA from somebody else (hair, blood, other stuff) and then plant it at a crime scene to fool detectives.

I'm in favor of executions, though. Speedy ones. The day after conviction.

Of course, to make sure the jury's verdict is more likely to be the truth, there should be IQ tests given to jurors, with a minimum qualifying score of about 120. The jurors should be smart enough to be able to tell when a lawyer is trying to win his case by sneaky tricks and fast talking.

By the way, it should be a crime for lawyers to do that: attempt to win a case through dishonesty and obfuscation. If they do it in capital cases, it should be a capital crime.

Answer 6

YES. If there is 100% evidence proving that someone commited a foul crime ie rape/child abuse/murder then why not.

I would rather see the scum that commited the crime hanged than given a chance as they are "no longer a danger to society" where they promptly go out and reoffend - look at the amount that have been in the paper recently that have been released early only to reoffend.

Protect the innocent not the guilty.

Answer 7

State endorsed execution is still murder, and an easy way out for the the guilty party. Life imprisonment is actually more severe, & there is always the possibility of redemption with the prisoner able to contribute positively to society as a whole, even from inside jail.

Answer 8

No not Automatically , it surely depends on the cicumstances ,if a person has been abused , supressed , bullied , demeaned constantly and had their lives made a misery by a bullying tyrant, that must surely have a bearing on the case and must be part of the considerations.

Answer 9

Yeah but remenber this. If you find a fingerprint then you can say that the person has been there Unless someone has cut off his finger. With DNA it can be planted by bent cops or gangsters or anyone really.

Answer 10

DNA, if the processes are complete and trusted. Then it can be very persuasive in a court of law.

Then again, if you got millions and your name has the letters OJ in it then that's another story LOL

True, DNA can not be 100% accurate, but depending on what DNA materials are available and the process used, it can be 99.9999999999% accurate. 8-)