Is this interesting?

Question

In Arizona a man has been accuised of multiple rapes and murders. At a line up one of the rape victims said she was not sure it was him. The prosecuter ignored the line up. DNA evidence connected the man with the victim. That means they were in the same room at one time. The DNA expert says that the DNA is 100% accurate unless it is a very unusual coincedence. There goes DNA. The prosecuter ignors any evidence that is against his being able to include a high profile conviction on his resume.
DNA is sneaky. You can't see it smell it, hear it, taste it or touch it. It takes an expert to understand it. experts are human. they can be bought to lie.

Answer 1

Ignoring evidence that at least partially shows the innocence of the accused, known as exculpatory evidence, is more than unethical. It is illegal and is a part of the crime of malicious prosecution.

ALL evidence gathered by the prosecution, who should not be called the prosecution, by the way, must, by law, be furnished to the defense, including any exculpatory evidence or the prosecution is committing a felony.

The reason I say that the prosecution should not be called that is because their job is not just prosecuting. It is first and foremost fact-gathering, or truth finding if you prefer. Unfortunately, too many members of District Attorneys' Offices feel they are there to get someone convicted, actual crime or not. They are judged on percentage of convictions, which is why so many drug dealers are in and out. A plea bargain to a lesser offence still counts as a conviction.

I trust the experts more. One lie and their credibility is gone forever, along with their careers, similarly to the now former NBA referee in the news lately.

Answer 2

On the side of the victim, remember they have gone through an emotionally and personally tragic experience. There is nothing more damaging to someone than a personal attack like rape. Frankly I wouldn't call it anything other than trauma that the victim didn't recognize the person. It isn't like she has seen him every day, it was probably a very quick event in which most of it to the victim is a blur. I have worked with victims who after the rape didn't know what skin color the attacker was because she was so scared she shut her eyes. It isn't uncommon for someone not to recognize an attacker like that. If I had someone run through a room of 20 people I would get 20 different descriptions of that person.

Answer 3

DNA evidence is basically iron-clad, unless you can prove the lab mixed up the vials, and the actual attacker's vial happened to be switched with yours. Or you have an identical twin, I suppose. The odds against the DNA being wrong are so astronomical that convicted death row inmates are allowed out on its say-so. D'you think the courts would allow that if there was any kind of decent chance it was wrong? Nope.

It doesn't take an expert to understand it. A lab tech has to run the test, but there's no real "interpretation" to it---much more solid than handwriting, eyewitnesses, or on-the-stand-testimony. Dunno what you've got against it, but it's one of the best things to happen to the legal system in years.

Answer 4

Yes, people can be bought. Prosecutors though do not pay of people to lie, they may not give the whole truth, like in the Duke case. If a prosecutor was caught paying of someone to lie, they would be disbarred, sued, and sent to prison. The same would happen to the DNA expert. It is to big of chance for someone to take. Especially in a high profile case, the truth will come out just like it did at Duke and we all saw what happened to that prosecutor.

Answer 5

DNA is accurate. There are no coincidences. It either matches, or it doesn't. In criminal cases, more than one person looks at the sample results.

Answer 6

Whats your question?

Answer 7

i don't really understand but it is interesting

Answer 8

no