If DNA is to be used for implicating people in crimes, then what is to stop ANYONE from collection a sample from ANYONE else, and planting it as a frame?
What if I were a powerful man and wanted to destroy anybody, including keeping the poor broken down, and planted the DNA of those I want to destroy?
I could have anybody killed, and then have someone else's DNA planted on the scene. Law enforcement obeys the will of those in power, not the poor. Why would they object to looking at planting possibilities for the poor? They rarely do this with those who have status, power, and wealth, and who are above suspicion by virtue of there status?
Evidence collection and integrity must go hand-in-hand, and with the obvious dishonest political climate we have in this country, it is completely insane to implement persecution and destruction of lives with this level of precision. Total enslavement of those unable to afford representation would ensue.
2007-04-02 02:28:33 · 7 answers · asked by DW 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I wonder if I am getting answers from people who are thinking about this real problem, or if I am getting responses from those who have a bias for law enforcement due to their indoctrination from crime/drama TV.
2007-04-09 04:06:05 · update #1
I think lie detector technology should be allowed as evidence for defense purposes. I realize that a person cannot be forced to testify against themselves, and lie detectors do that, but I think they should be allowed as substantial evidence to prove a person's innocence if the person chooses to use it.
2007-04-09 04:11:30 · update #2
Reminds me of something.......what if someone invented a way of lifting your fingerprints off of a item-a cup you just used for instance. Then transfered your fingerprints onto something else. A gun used in a crime.
Yeah-that cant be done.
Yet. (or can it?)
2007-04-02 02:36:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
First, cops do not make an arrest based on dna alone. They need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person who owns the dna was actually there and had motive along with the strength to physically do something, and they would need to be in possession of the murder weapon... good luck next time.
2007-04-08 00:17:40 · answer #2 · answered by Star 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is an interesting question. I never thought about it before, actually. I can't help but think, though, that supposedly whenever someone commits a crime, he/she leaves SOME evidence of his identity behind. DNA testing may not be a foolproof way of nailing the right person, but what would be better?
2007-04-02 09:34:09 · answer #3 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unless they start 'dusting for DNA' I dont think you have anything to worry about yet.
DNA has to be pulled from something tangible - hair, fingerprints, etc.
So if you're really asking about whether things like fingerprints or hair can be planted at the scene of the crime - well...
2007-04-02 09:45:43 · answer #4 · answered by Rob 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am truly sorry that you didn't get the job at C.S.I., but surely you must see why and all. Hundreds of things can be investigated after a crime, won't take them long to realize the d.n.a. is tainted. Sorry, and good luck looking for another job.
2007-04-09 16:12:33 · answer #5 · answered by fuzzypetshop 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it's not the only evidence used.
2007-04-02 09:32:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Insane is what I call your idea for anarchy in the USA.
2007-04-02 09:47:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋