SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 13,911
- 6,502
- 365
DNA testing is now common. You can have your DNA tested and identified online. It is simple, and reasonably inexpensive and definitive. If two samples are tested and found to match then it is virtually impossible to say there is a mistake. Not impossible. A famous case from the Bush era was a man who was identified as being a bomber in Europe. He had not traveled to Europe, and had the same DNA markers as a known terrorist. Like everything it must be taken in context.
DNA has exonerated hundreds of people in prison for crimes they did not commit. Normally the request to have DNA testing done on evidence is routine. The test can be definitive. If the samples match with the convicted suspect then the case is just about airtight. If it does not match, then you almost certainly have the wrong guy. Well. Texas has decided that allowing the testing in one case is just too much risk. I mean, how will it look if another death penalty guy is exonerated by a test that can’t be argued with?
Texas Schedules Execution but Refuses DNA Tests That Could Prove a Man’s Innocence
The judge assigned to hear the motions seems to believe that the standards of law have been met. We know that the test can be as close to absolutely certain as possible. But the appeals court says no. Why we don’t know what the test will show. There might not be DNA in the rape kit, or the blood under the victims fingernails. I love this theory. The blood under her nails might have been blown there by helicopters searching for the victim. It might even be a police officers blood who cut himself shaving.
You test to find out. You don’t test just to confirm what is known. You ask questions and you try and find the answer. The test may prove the convicted is guilty as hell. It may show he is not the rapist and murderer of a young woman. If we are going to put someone to death, shouldn’t we be sure as we can possibly be that we have the right someone?
He might be the baddie. He might well deserve to die. But from here, I wonder why Texas is afraid of this test?
DNA has exonerated hundreds of people in prison for crimes they did not commit. Normally the request to have DNA testing done on evidence is routine. The test can be definitive. If the samples match with the convicted suspect then the case is just about airtight. If it does not match, then you almost certainly have the wrong guy. Well. Texas has decided that allowing the testing in one case is just too much risk. I mean, how will it look if another death penalty guy is exonerated by a test that can’t be argued with?
Texas Schedules Execution but Refuses DNA Tests That Could Prove a Man’s Innocence
The judge assigned to hear the motions seems to believe that the standards of law have been met. We know that the test can be as close to absolutely certain as possible. But the appeals court says no. Why we don’t know what the test will show. There might not be DNA in the rape kit, or the blood under the victims fingernails. I love this theory. The blood under her nails might have been blown there by helicopters searching for the victim. It might even be a police officers blood who cut himself shaving.
You test to find out. You don’t test just to confirm what is known. You ask questions and you try and find the answer. The test may prove the convicted is guilty as hell. It may show he is not the rapist and murderer of a young woman. If we are going to put someone to death, shouldn’t we be sure as we can possibly be that we have the right someone?
He might be the baddie. He might well deserve to die. But from here, I wonder why Texas is afraid of this test?
