They can't really be serious...can they?

[9th Engineer]

This is the first time I've thought that someone at howstuffworks.com is completely off their rocker. I just can't figure out what would promt this logic no matter what angle I look at it from.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/dna-evi...ions-index.htm

Someone has been hitting the sauce.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Do Not Adjudicate.

[wolf]

DNA is far from being the end all and be all of jurisprudence that CSI wants us to think it is every week ... justification defenses and "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" are what drive the process.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought it was money that drives the process.

[footfootfoot]

I've never held out much hope for the intellect of my peers. Rahter like not accepting membership at any club that would have me as a member.

A friend of mine who is a lawyer (an environmental lawyer, if that makes a difference) once told me "you don't ever want to get in the criminal justice system" It is all about deals and who knows whom and who needs a favor from whom.

DNA Dude is off his wonkers. DNA evidence ain't that hard to understand. I bet even I could explain it to people with no background in biology - unless, of course, it was the god created the fossils crowd. PFFFFFT!

Footx3, your lawyer friend is damn straight that no one should get involved in the CJ system - ESPECIALLY if all you can get is a public defender. PD's are hoping for jobs in the DA's office, or, at the very least, admittance to the old boy's club where pleas are made over a drink of scotch at a snazzy watering hole on the way home from work.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by wolf

DNA is far from being the end all and be all of jurisprudence that CSI wants us to think it is every week ... justification defenses and "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" are what drive the process.

This has become quite a problem.

"Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case," laments Oregon District Attorney Josh Marquis. "They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television."

And in a big city like Baltimore, prosecutors blamed "The CSI Effect" when jurors acquitted a man of murder, even though were two eyewitnesses. "Not even first degree, second degree, third degree, nothing, and they shot my husband," cried Patricia Peterson, the victim's wife.

It's just TV, folks! Fiction!

[barefoot serpent]

just remember that the average IQ of the jury of your peers is


100.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

just remember that the average IQ of the jury of your peers is 100.

Yes, however, according to every parent I've ever spoken to, we are in luck: their children are above average.

[xoxoxoBruce]

While I don't doubt the parents assesment, by the time the kids are eligible for jury duty, they've been dumbed down considerably.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by barefoot serpent

just remember that the average IQ of the jury of your peers is


100.

well fortunatly most people with average IQs are less rigid thinkers or more down to earth thinkers than some with higher IQs. I think it just depends on breeeeding. Home life ect.

I know I said breeding. I am not a snob just sleep deprived.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

This has become quite a problem.



It's just TV, folks! Fiction!

My opinion about the american justice system.

I wish the people like the guy in the article would stop whining and just do their job or stop whinning and get more funding. Do something besides whining how the american public wants them to work smarter. Actually think and figure things out. ' oh ouch' for them. I think if the expectation has risin the bar then yay. Our elected officials need to stop eating so many donuts. Anyway.

[richlevy]

"Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case," laments Oregon District Attorney Josh Marquis. "They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television."

Of course, considering how many people the Innocence Project has freed with DNA evidence years or decades after conviction, holding out for DNA evidence before you sentence someone to death or life in prison might no be a bad minimum standard.

If I had a crystal ball and 50 million dollars, I could hire Robert Blake's lawyer for every innocent defendent. Barring that, I think that jurors wanting more evidence before convicting someone is not a bad thing, considering how little 'reasonable doubt' was applied to some of the convictions the Innocence Project overturned.

Yes, you are probably not going to have blood spatter and gun residue on a suspect two days later. This might mean that the suspect has had time to shower and dispose of the clothes worn during the crime, or it might mean that the person is innocent.

I want law and order as much as anyone, even Maggie. I also want justice, which can sometime be different. The fact is, unless the defendents are rich, they rely on public defenders, and the prosecutors, for all of their claims about funding, usually are better staffed and funded than the public defenders. So if they have to work at it a little harder to make sure that the cops picked the right guy, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

See preponderance of the evidence.

preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial.

We have a weaker test in civil cases than in criminal cases for a reason. If a civil case is later found to be wrong, it's easier to give someone their money back than their life back.

While the ease with which the CSI television people are able to collect their evidence is probably not true to life, the methods of collection and types of evidence available are real. So if a jury wants to know why a defendent picked up 30 minutes after a gun crime doesn't have any gun residue, I am very happy for that, because probably many public defenders might not bring up the point, even though they should have.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

It's just TV, folks! Fiction!

Well let's examine the deductive powers of everyone here. Everyone was on a murder trial once. It was called Saddam's WMDs. They did not exist. Facts that said WMDs existence were in some cases nothing but speculation and in other cases outright and bogus lies. Accusations for WMDs were "they should exist, therefore they must exist". How many here had sufficient deductive powers to immediately see through that spin? And welcome to the jury.

Those who were seeking irrefutable facts also got 'big eyes' when details from places such as the advanced physics labs said those aluminum tubes could not be used for WMDs. Well published fact back then. So why was it ignored? Emotion is sufficient for logical deduction? It does not mate properly with your emotional perspective; so it was ignored? Yes. Many do not take a realists attitude. They feel - like a Barbara Walters or Oprah Winfrey - rather than demand specific facts. Does that sound like an OJ jury?

People who decide by 'feeling' can be convinced that Jews are the dirty vermin who created Germany's woes. It’s that easy when so many use and an English major's or an Oprah Winfrey analysis. They cannot put facts together in a jigsaw puzzle of reality. They even run about Europe looking for evidence of the DaVince Code. Even though they admit it was only fiction, their need to think emotionally has them looking for a ‘DaVince Code’ reality.

Insufficient grasp explains why so many like and read so much fiction. Reality violated by a bad story and the illogical does not bother them. They must have DNA because they cannot make rational and deductive reasoning.

Michael Crichton discovered the problem when submitting work to an English professor in Harvard. Rather than be judged on facts, consistency, and logic, Crichton was apparently criticized for things that don't matter such as sentence structure, grammar, and the biases of his grader. So frustrated was he as to submit an

essay by George Orwell as his own. The professor doesn't catch the plagiarism and gives Orwell a B-. This experience convinces Crichton to change his field of study

Crichton's grammar and sentence structure was so bad as to become a wealthy author of Jurassic Park and many other best selling novels.

But then he was submitting work to an English professional - one from a field more interested in feelings rather than in reality, the 'irrefutable fact', and deductive reasoning.

Again, how would you have done on a murder trial jury? You were on one. Did you have sufficient grasp to see through outright and intentional lies from a president? Why not? There was no smoking gun. There was insufficient evidence to condemn 98,000 Iraqis to death. Remember, I called it a murder trial. We Americans created the death of 98,000+ Iraqis in less than two years because “we knew Saddam must have WMDs". How many of us here in The Cellar were so easily manipulated by emotional hype when I can personally assure you that the facts were also provided here. How many here knew "Saddam has WMDs only because he should have WMDs"? Now how often does such spin and lie become a jury verdict?

Everyone reading this was on that jury. Were you guilty of not separating fact from emotion? 70% of us demonstrated such great mental deficiency as to advocate the Pearl Harboring of Iraq. And yes, it was just as despicable as what Japan did in Hawaii. Welcome to the jury. How did you do when faced with ‘following the evidence’? CSI is fiction. But CSI demonstrates how to think logically rather than emotionally. Too many – like a Harvard English professor - just don’t get it. Instead we want to see DNA? Instead we miss the point? Another question that begs "do we think using logic or think using emotional perceptions"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

To the pitchforks!
Light the torches!
Bring a rope!