[Kickaha]

I *hate* to break this up, but...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science....ap/index.html

DNA indictments - for or against?

I'll put myself down in the 'for' column... since the indictment requires identification of an individual, and known aliases are allowed for old-style indictments, doesn't it make sense that this is just another way of determining a particular person's identity?

Discuss amongst yourselves...

[alcimedes]

i have a problem with it.

say for example someone says they're raped. (they may or may not be telling the truth. ex: a young girl has sex, parents find out and she freaks, tells them she's been raped. it happens)

now you have someone who's DNA is in the database as a rapist. you have the victim's testimony but no perpetrator's testimony. in 30 years that person could be a suspect in another crime. lo and behold, their DNA shows up under a rape warrent. now you have the problem of trying to disprove your guilt (since the DNA basically implies guilt) 30 years after the fact. a lot of evidence outside of DNA evidence is now gone. people have moved, passed away. other physical evidence, eyewitnesses has gone away. you're screwed.

no, there's a statute of limitations for a reason, and i'd personally work to keep them in place. if the police don't have enough evidence to convict within the statute, then they need to drop the case. the end around on constitutional rights is crap, IMO.

if you're truely interested in keeping innocent people out of prison, you need to make sure not to lose sight of the accused's rights in the persuit of justice.

[Kickaha]

And how is that different than a false accusation against "Jimbo Reese" (apologies to any Jimbo Reese's reading this), an indictment is issued, and they don't physically find him for 20 years? Same situation.

[Luca]

FYI to all those involved, I added some clarification to the title. I am not getting involved in the discussion, other than to say I'm proud of everyone here for carrying on a heated discussion without getting into rudeness or attacks. *tear* I love you guys!

[Maciej]

Ohh sorry for the bad title, didn't expect things to actually take off this well. Figured since it was in the off-topic, it didn't need an uber accurate title.

[alcimedes]

And how is that different than a false accusation against "Jimbo Reese"

because if/when you accuse "Jimbo Reese" you can find Jimbo Reese, or at least he knows he's been accused and has a chance to defend himself. you've accused a person, not a faceless bit of DNA. once you accuse a person you can actually check the victim's story against known information about a person's whereabouts, possible alibi's etc.

none of that is possible with a John Doe warrent.

[Kickaha]

Are you advocating that John Doe warrants in general should be banned? Or just those involving DNA evidence?

Because there are cases where say, a false name is given, a rape occurs, and the warrant is given out for that alias... but since it doesn't match any known name, no stories can be checked out, etc...

Now, in the future, if that alias pops in a database under a known identity, it can be linked, and *then* stories can be checked out, etc. That's the current system. How is the DNA evidence any different, except as a different way of identifying someone?

[alcimedes]

i don't like john doe warrents in general, especially as you get to more serious cases, but just pointing out how a DNA warrent is different than a warrent for a person.

and even if the warrent is for a person with an alias (not a real name), that alias is tied to a person in a way that you can ask "hey, you know ratface". eventually, if you look in the right places, you'll find ratface's friends, and be able to track them down, or start to.

[Kickaha]

Personally, I find a warrant for an alias to be extremely *more* tenuous than a DNA warrant. With DNA, the chances of correctly tying it to the correct person are extremely good. Aliases? Hell, I can give you any name I want, never use it again, and that warrant is useless.