PB&J Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 ...The defendant in the case is William Osborne, who in 1993 was convicted of a brutal kidnapping, rape, and assault in Alaska. DNA testing on semen found in a condom at the crime scene didn't exclude Osborne, but it did include as many as 16 percent of all black men. More sophisticated testing not available at the time of Osborne’s trial would today conclusively determine whether he actually committed the crime. Even the state of Alaska concedes that a negative test would confirm that Osborne is innocent. The test would cost all of $1,000, a fee that would be paid not by the state, but by Osborne’s own legal team at the Innocence Project. Yet the state of Alaska refuses to hand the sample over for testing, and has fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep it from Osborne’s lawyers. The state claims that Osborne’s trial produced more than sufficient proof that he committed the crime, and that this is all they need to feel confident in his guilt. Establishing a constitutional right to DNA testing in cases like Osborne’s, the state says, would be wasteful and unnecessary, and undermine the certainty and finality that lends integrity to the criminal justice system. Ken Rosenstein, the state’s lead attorney on the case, told the Anchorage Daily News, "If there was other doubtful evidence that supported his...possible innocence...things might be different. But it's merely a wish and a prayer at this point." Read the whole article here: http://reason.com/news/show/131995.html From reading this article it seems like the obvious thing to do would be to guarantee DNA testing. What if this guy is innocent, then that is state-sponsored murder plain and simple. You would think that advences in biotechnology and the use of DNA to identify people would be covered in "due process", the supreme court may be deciding just that based on this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 DNA tests should be the equivalent of showing ones identification in today's world. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I've only been here about 3 weeks and I already know what people here are going to say (with the exception of 1 or 2 people) in the political discussion. It's quite amusing. If it's that easy for me, imagine how easy it was for the media to mold your minds. Good stuff, keep it up WSS. It's really is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I've only been here about 3 weeks and I already know what people here are going to say (with the exception of 1 or 2 people) in the political discussion. It's quite amusing. If it's that easy for me, imagine how easy it was for the media to mold your minds. Good stuff, keep it up WSS. It's really is funny. Let's pretend you're actually admiring my superior wit. Baby steps. So you don't agree or you have no opinion or what? Which politician you like (including Obammy) do you have a problem figuring ot his or her phiosophy? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I don't see how you can deny turning over evidence that could exonerate someone, especially in a capital case. As far as making DNA testing a "right", that's a step that I wouldn't lightly take. I'd imagine the logistical ramifications of such a move would be hugely costly to the state. Maybe it can be part of the next stimulus bill then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Good point, Juki - the scope of the right would be extremely important. If it's decided that access to DNA evidence is a fundamental part of due process, what happens if a police officer pulls a Mark Fuhrman and contaminates the evidence? Or if there's a lab mixup and the sample is destroyed? It's definitely a complicated issue. But I definitely agree with PB&J that the status quo in states like Alaska is extremely problematic. The article explains why: Every exoneration means not only that an innocent person did time for a crime he didn’t commit, but also that the person who actually committed the crime was allowed to go free. One amicus brief filed on Osborne’s behalf by several former prosecutors (including former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno) points to several cases in which prosecutors vigorously fought DNA testing for years. When the tests were finally done, they not only cleared the defendant, but when checked against DNA databases they were able to identify the actual culprit. In some cases, the actual culprit escaped justice, because in the time the prosecutors spent blocking the test in the courts, the crime’s statute of limitations had expired. In other cases, the actual culprit passed away. Many times the real culprits went on to commit more crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Let's pretend you're actually admiring my superior wit. Baby steps. So you don't agree or you have no opinion or what? Which politician you like (including Obammy) do you have a problem figuring ot his or her phiosophy? WSS I voted Ron Paul. I think he would of done more for this country then any of the candidates. I think calling him a "Republican" is insulting. Which brings me to the point. Politicians have to be affiliated with one of the "parties" to even have a chance of competing in a presidential race. So what is easier than having to market to 300 million people about how you should think and feel about politics? Having 2 parties. Can you imagine if there were 7 "prominent" political parties in the US like there is in England? Wow that would be overwhelming for us to keep in check. It's hard enough for the American people to grasp 2 parties let alone 7. Having views that match each political party is easy to market to us. Republican = Gun loving, Obama-hating, country music lovin, Christian's. Democrat = Gun hating, Obama-lovin, abortion-lovin, fags. That is how it is marketed to the American public. It's easy for us to remember. That makes up about 85% of the country. Ford vs Chevy. It's the same principle. Do you find it funny that African American's voted for the same party that wanted to keep them as slaves 150 years ago? Do you find it funny that the White Christian vote was used on a party that freed the slaves? See how easy the marketing of each party is changed? I don't have a problem figuring out any philosophy. I understand that Obama is doing something that has never been done. And it scares a lot of people here on the board. Which is why you get the name childish name calling and obvious "forgetting" of certain facts. Sort of like the military tough guy that beats up a fag because he is a fag himself and can't admit it. Their scared. But to go out and say Obama is to blame for everything is absurd. This was in the making for a long time. This debt was built when both parties were in office. Saying that after 2 months in office Obama is the reason for the failure of our economy is also ridiculous. Talk to me in 4 years. This brings up my question. Why are you affiliated with the political party you are affiliated with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We need Tom Tupa Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Just a few thoughts: 1) Access to DNA testing is a good thing. But that doesnt mean it is a Constitutional right that the Supreme Court should require states to uphold. 2) There doesnt really seem to be anyone that thinks this guy didnt do what he was convicted of doing (anyone involved in the case, that is). This is a case about technicalities, not innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I voted Ron Paul. I think he would of done more for this country then any of the candidates. I think calling him a "Republican" is insulting. Having views that match each political party is easy to market to us. Republican = Gun loving, Obama-hating, country music lovin, Christian's. Democrat = Gun hating, Obama-lovin, abortion-lovin, fags. This brings up my question. Why are you affiliated with the political party you are affiliated with? Well as you say you have everyone on the board pegged, right? It was a snap fir a smart fellow as yourself. So why not tell me then where I stand on a handful of issues? BTW I'll be glad to answer after you do that, OK? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Do you find it funny that African American's voted for the same party that wanted to keep them as slaves 150 years ago? Do you find it funny that the White Christian vote was used on a party that freed the slaves? See how easy the marketing of each party is changed? Wow, white Christians are pro-slavery? But vote Republican because they suck at history? hmm... consider my interest piqued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Well as you say you have everyone on the board pegged, right? It was a snap fir a smart fellow as yourself. So why not tell me then where I stand on a handful of issues? BTW I'll be glad to answer after you do that, OK? WSS See post above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 See post above. Actually my interest was piqued in your explanation of that complete disaster of analysis (quoted) that yielded my response. Not in joining the Republican party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Actually my interest was piqued in your explanation of that complete disaster of analysis (quoted) that yielded my response. Not in joining the Republican party. That wasn't directed to you. So why are you affiliated with the political party you are affiliated with? At least I gave it a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 That wasn't directed to you. So why are you affiliated with the political party you are affiliated with? At least I gave it a shot. Gotcha. I'm not affiliated with any party, officially. I can explain why I am no longer affiliated with the Republican party. Had Dr. Paul been on my ballot, he would have received my vote. Nonetheless, my vote has been the same all 3 times I've been able to vote in the Presidential elections: lesser of two evils. I actually bought Bush 2's 1st campaign (even he mostly received my "anybody but Gore" vote), but that went out on the window. The republican party lost my membership (around 2005-06) when they became just as big government party (if not moreseo) than the Democrats. Time and time again, the government has shown what it can do when given more responsibility (money) which is obliterate the word "nadir" when it comes to levels of suck, ineptitude, and inefficiency. I used to believe the Repub's fought against that. They do not, so I handed in my card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 lesser of two evils. That is exactly the message above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Still waiting KFP. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.