There have been several cases recently in the news pertaining to the issue of DNA evidence:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1718972,00.html
Quote: "Mr Doswell was convicted of raping a 48-year-old woman at a former hospital in Pittsburgh.... Mr Doswells claim that he was a mile away from the crime when it took place were ignored by detectives. Police and prosecutors also ignored the fact that he did not have a beard and had no visible marks on his face, despite the victims claim that her assailant was bearded and that she had bloodied him after hitting him.
Prosecutors consistently refused Mr Doswells requests for a DNA test. When Mr Doswell sought DNA testing in 1999, prosecutors said that his claim was filed three weeks too late under state appeals procedures. "
and
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/08/03/194283.html
Quote: "MIAMI - A man who spent 26 years behind bars as Florida's "Bird Road Rapist" was ordered released from prison Wednesday after DNA evidence excluded him as the attacker in two of the rapes and cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any of the crimes...
Barry Scheck, executive director of the Innocence Project, said the Diaz case demonstrates anew the need for police to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
He said three-quarters of the 160 prisoners who have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA in the United States had been convicted based on mistaken identification.
"This should be a landmark case in the history of eyewitness reform," Scheck said. "There are reforms police and prosecutors are using across the country that reduce error, protect the innocent and help apprehend the guilty."
First of all, hallelujah for science.
Conviction based purely on witness testimony with little physical evidence is wrong and in a state that permits the death penalty, tantamount to murder by the state.
In my opinion, all death penalty cases in which the person was convicted with little physical evidence and mostly by witness should be put on hold, until DNA testing confirms their guilt. Wherever possible, DNA testing for evidence should be made mandatory in proving guilt for violent crimes, such as rape and murder.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1718972,00.html
Quote: "Mr Doswell was convicted of raping a 48-year-old woman at a former hospital in Pittsburgh.... Mr Doswells claim that he was a mile away from the crime when it took place were ignored by detectives. Police and prosecutors also ignored the fact that he did not have a beard and had no visible marks on his face, despite the victims claim that her assailant was bearded and that she had bloodied him after hitting him.
Prosecutors consistently refused Mr Doswells requests for a DNA test. When Mr Doswell sought DNA testing in 1999, prosecutors said that his claim was filed three weeks too late under state appeals procedures. "
and
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/08/03/194283.html
Quote: "MIAMI - A man who spent 26 years behind bars as Florida's "Bird Road Rapist" was ordered released from prison Wednesday after DNA evidence excluded him as the attacker in two of the rapes and cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any of the crimes...
Barry Scheck, executive director of the Innocence Project, said the Diaz case demonstrates anew the need for police to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
He said three-quarters of the 160 prisoners who have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA in the United States had been convicted based on mistaken identification.
"This should be a landmark case in the history of eyewitness reform," Scheck said. "There are reforms police and prosecutors are using across the country that reduce error, protect the innocent and help apprehend the guilty."
First of all, hallelujah for science.
Conviction based purely on witness testimony with little physical evidence is wrong and in a state that permits the death penalty, tantamount to murder by the state.
In my opinion, all death penalty cases in which the person was convicted with little physical evidence and mostly by witness should be put on hold, until DNA testing confirms their guilt. Wherever possible, DNA testing for evidence should be made mandatory in proving guilt for violent crimes, such as rape and murder.
