Honoring DNA testing requests regardless of existing evidence?
3 posts, 2 voices
Login to reply
Manda_B
1 post
|
I don't think it should if there is clear and convincing evidence beyond the DNA and any reasonable doubt, such as the case that brought this question up. |
| 'DNA' HAS CLEARLY 'SAVE' SEVERAL PEOPLE , FOUND GUILTY OF CRIMES THAT THEY DID 'NOT' COMMITT. THE METHOD SHOULD BE MANTORY AND REQUIRE IN ALL OF THE U.S. STATES THAT INVOLVES SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASES, REGARDLESS OF ANY EXISTING EVIDENCE. THIS IS A EXTRA FIGHTING TOOL FOR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. P.S. HOW ABOUT A QUESTION ON HOW TO STOP PUTTING INNOCENT PEOPLE BEHIND BARS. FURTHERMORE TO PROVIDE 'COMPONSATION' FOR WRONGLY CONVICTED PERSON(S) , OF CRIMES THAT THEY DID 'NOT' COMMITT. | |
| I think that no matter what DNA testing should be done. Think of people who have bene sentenced to death and afterwards it was found out that they were innocent. I think in order to be 100% and not take any chances that DNA testing should be done. | |
* For speed and versatility, Corrections.com has been relaunched in opensource. Some older postings dates may be affected.
