Murder

It is most unfortunate and miscarriages of justice have a considerable affect on those who suffer it. Nevertheless I can't help but feel that a miscarriage of justice that took place 18 years ago is not so relevant to today's world where there have been considerable improvement in forensic science and crime scene investigation. It's a very sad story though.

Am I missing something? You said a man was put in jail and did and 18 year sentence before being released and aquitted of the murder. He then commited suicide.
I got all that but how does that have anything to do with the death penalty? You say you're against the death penalty but I was under the impression the guy served an 18 year sentence and was released?
Was that specific case just a segway into a death penalty debate? :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LoveToStack

Am I missing something? You said a man was put in jail and did and 18 year sentence before being released and aquitted of the murder. He then commited suicide.
I got all that but how does that have anything to do with the death penalty? You say you're against the death penalty but I was under the impression the guy served an 18 year sentence and was released?
Was that specific case just a segway into a death penalty debate? :S

---

He is saying he is against the death penalty because, if it was in force, the man probably would have been killed before the opportunity arose to see him acquitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garion

It is most unfortunate and miscarriages of justice have a considerable affect on those who suffer it. Nevertheless I can't help but feel that a miscarriage of justice that took place 18 years ago is not so relevant to today's world where there have been considerable improvement in forensic science and crime scene investigation. It's a very sad story though.

---

forensics cannot be, in my opinion, the only means to convict someone of murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

forensics cannot be, in my opinion, the only means to convict someone of murder.

---

Ultimately that depends on the nature of the forensic evidence. Are you telling me that if the semen of a man was found on the victim of a murder who had clearly been raped beforehand, combined with fingerprints on a murder weapon (of the same person) would not justify a conviction of murder? Whilst I appreciate this is not always the situation, it can happen and is a perfectly fair way to convict someone of any offence. For someone to be found guilty of a criminal offence it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt anyway and for the most part this is a fair way of doing it - miscarriages of justice, particularly on this scale, are rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garion

Ultimately that depends on the nature of the forensic evidence. Are you telling me that if the semen of a man was found on the victim of a murder who had clearly been raped beforehand, combined with fingerprints on a murder weapon (of the same person) would not justify a conviction of murder? Whilst I appreciate this is not always the situation, it can happen and is a perfectly fair way to convict someone of any offence. For someone to be found guilty of a criminal offence it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt anyway and for the most part this is a fair way of doing it - miscarriages of justice, particularly on this scale, are rare.

---

you've shown that that's quite clearly more than just forensic evidence. this isn't just finding someone's hair on the victim's clothes - you've managed to put beyond doubt that that person raped and murdered. which isn't what I meant.

what police shouldn't do is find DNA and then try and frame someone because they have a skin cell on their jumper.

and the miscarriages are only ever proved when it's found out - it's hard to say they're rare. in an appeal im sure it's up to the defendant to prove themselves not guilty rather tahn the other way round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

you've shown that that's quite clearly more than just forensic evidence. this isn't just finding someone's hair on the victim's clothes - you've managed to put beyond doubt that that person raped and murdered. which isn't what I meant.

what police shouldn't do is find DNA and then try and frame someone because they have a skin cell on their jumper.

---

I am saying that DNA evidence can mean that (in some instances) they can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in the event the DNA evidence isn't enough to make this happen the police will attempt to find other evidence anyway. It is highly unlikely the CPS would take a case based solely on a skin cell and I am confident in the highly unlikely event it did, the jury wouldn't find the defendant guilty unless there was additional evidence which proved to them beyond reasonable doubt the individual was guilty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well considering he has tried to committ suicide three times I am guessing he doesn't agree with you.

---

Well as has been said before (the general jist);

Prison to an innocent man is awful.
Prison to a criminal is the normal.

If you are innocent then you value your freedoms, this story shows that up to be very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garion

I am saying that DNA evidence can mean that (in some instances) they can be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in the event the DNA evidence isn't enough to make this happen the police will attempt to find other evidence anyway. It is highly unlikely the CPS would take a case based solely on a skin cell and I am confident in the highly unlikely event it did, the jury wouldn't find the defendant guilty unless there was additional evidence which proved to them beyond reasonable doubt the individual was guilty.

---

and that's the way it should stay. dna evidence should never be the end-all.