Skip to main content
I find little to agree with Anna Quindlen about, but....



From Coffee Cup To Court



The release of an innocent man, the linking of several crimes, the conviction of the undeniably guilty: the extraordinary uses of DNA testing are all there, in that one case. More reliable than fingerprints or ballistics or the evidence of your lying eyes, the genetic fingerprint we humans leave everywhere in our wake is the best witness the criminal-justice system has ever had. And not just for prosecutors. Roughly one in four of the samples run through a federal databank exonerates a suspect, even when all other evidence suggests he is guilty.
This is the good side of DNA evidence. Unfortunately, she also presents an example of the downside:



Lots of the attention paid to DNA testing so far has been negative, the concerns about privacy rights and the defense high jinks and scientific gobbledygook of the O. J. Simpson case. But those who are worried that their genetic secrets will be used to deny them insurance coverage ought to be more concerned with that urine sample provided at work. Those worried about the rights of the accused should know that DNA testing does more than any other technique to protect the innocent. It’s the anonymity of the guilty to which it poses a threat.



Good example: the case recently in which a rapist was in jail in Wisconsin because of DNA evidence when yet another woman reported an attack. The DNA from the scene matched that of the imprisoned man. Had the DNA lied? No, the woman had. She’d been paid to take a sample of semen that had been smuggled out of jail and stage the rape to make the guilty guy look innocent.
As the required DNA samples get smaller and smaller, the possiblity of fraud and false evidence climbs. The procedures that police use to collect such evidence become more and more important, and too few departments are capable of properly collecting such evidence. (Never mind finding the lab, the technicians, etc.) I agree with her on the promise of DNA evidence; I am less happy about its universal application.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more