James Waller, has spent 10 years in prison in Texas after having been found guilty of Rape. His conviction was overturned when DNA evidence was admitted at His appeal trial. He is the 12th man in 5 years to have been falsely convicted of Rape in Texas. Do You think that DNA and Polygraph ("Lie Detector") tests should be manditory in all rape and/or assault cases? Please explain Your reasons.
2007-01-18 16:08:17 · 10 answers · asked by Ashleigh 7 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
Too many creeps know tricks to beat the polygraph...
But DNA SHOULD be mandatory! I'm sure there are some slime-balls that would find a way around that, too... Or find a way to frame someone else... BUT, more often than not, the DNA is PROOF POSITIVE of the perpetrator.
2007-01-21 18:02:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not polygraph but yes DNA should be entered into evidence. People are opposed because to go back and test the old cases is too expensive. I disagree. Rape is easily claimed and hard to refute even on a good day. Unknown assailant rape should have DNA to back up the claim unless there is an eye witness and maybe a video. I'm being a bit over board here but like I said, it's too easy for someone to claim rape.
2007-01-19 00:13:32 · answer #2 · answered by Chloe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With training, it is possible to fool a polygraph test. It would then be used to cast doubt on a person's guilt by questioning other, more reliable evidence, such as DNA. If the DNA shows that a person was guilty, and the polygraph suggests he is innocent, a jury may incorrectly free him.
I believe that for the prosecution to not admit DNA evidence, if it is available, should be grounds for acquittal.
2007-01-19 00:23:05 · answer #3 · answered by Labsci 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some of the penal systems are doing DNA testing as you mentioned, and they are finding out some of these individuals are innocent. Polygraph testing is not admissible in court, so it is not used. A pathological liar or a sociopath can beat a polygraph. I for one do not think that a person should be put on death row unless there is DNA evidence linking him to the crime. There are too many individuals who have been mistakenly identified by "eye witnesses." Others have had the misfortune of being put to death only to be found out innocent later. It could not be any more expensive to do DNA testing on a convicted criminal, than to house and feed him/her for ex number of years, or executing him/her.
2007-01-19 00:12:39 · answer #4 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Polygraph test are to unreliable. It has been proven that false readings occur. As it is now, they are not admissible in court so why charge for them. Do you know who pays for them if the defendant can not or if the Prosecution requests one? We, the tax payers do. So if they are not admissible, why do them in the first place. As far as DNA goes, yes I think all cases need to have them done and I believe it is becoming pretty standard now.
2007-01-19 03:12:19 · answer #5 · answered by Diana P 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who's against DNA testing? Polygraph is not admissible in a court of law.
2007-01-19 00:13:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Polygraphs are not admissible in court. So that really doesn't help anyone there.
DNA should be mandatory, but testing is very new and most crime labs are backed up with tests to perform.
2007-01-19 00:11:29 · answer #7 · answered by RiverGirl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that DNA should always be included because it is very difficult to contaminate that evidence and it appears in at least 75% of rape cases. on the subject of a polygragh test i dont believe they should always be used. they are not always accurate and most of the time not admisable in court.
2007-01-19 00:12:32 · answer #8 · answered by Drew M 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because then local DAs couldn't hype up rape cases for re-election purposes.
2007-01-19 00:13:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i with you
2007-01-19 00:11:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋