I don't like it. Sure, a DNA match is statistically more certain than a name and eye-witness identification, but the movement towards indicting suspects by their DNA leaves me with an unsettled feeling. As I've asked before, where does it end?
The New York Times said city officials will review DNA evidence from hundreds of sex crimes committed years ago, seeking indictments even when the suspects' identities aren't known, as a way of beating the 10-year statute of limitations.Statutes of limitations are important for a great many reasons, not least of which is the fact that it can be impossible to defend oneself against an accusation of wrongdoing that was committed many years previously. Witnesses and investigators die or become unavailable; evidence can be lost of corrupted; memories fade or change over time.The first 600 cases will involve crimes committed during 1994, but officials said they believe DNA-based indictments will allow them to arrest suspects no matter how far in the future.
Perhaps DNA acquisition, storage, and analysis procedures are completely rock-solid, but they aren't intuitive to the average layman. I saw John Smith steal my purse. Yes, that's his picture. Everyone can understand such testimony, and everyone has the carefully developed intuition that is required to discern truth from fiction. That's not the case with DNA evidence. Jurors would need to place their entire trust in the invisible and complex scientific process that handles DNA matching, and that's difficult to do. DNA is mere evidence, and evidence can be lost or tampered with -- words from a real human being who tells what he saw will always carry more visceral weight.
It's important for trials to be open and public, and one aspect of that openness is simplicity. Laymen need to be able to understand the entire chain of reasoning and evidence that leads to a suspect's arrest, trial, and judgement, or the public will lose faith in the system. Consider the pre-cogs in Minority Report -- even if they were correct 100% of the time, society would never tolerate such an opaque justice system, nor should it. It is eminently preferable that some criminals go free than that the public either blindly accepts an inscrutable legal system (ahem!) or loses faith in the system entirely.
Wow! I just heard about this on NPR as I was driving home. Scary stuff. The person advocating indicting DNA was claiming that the "statute of limitations" was letting people go free. Um, how about the police and the judicial system, maybe there the one's that need to get on the ball here.
Statutes of limitations are designed to "let people go free", essentially. It's better than forcing an innocent person to try to defend themself against accusations of a crime that happened decades ago. It frees up police resources to concentrate on recent crimes. &c.
Murder doesn't have time limit, and I think some other crimes don't as well. If they really want to get rid of the limits, all they have to do is pass a law to that effect.
Exactly! I would feel much more comfortable with that than with indicting DNA.
I wonder why they don't? It doesn't seem like it would be politically difficult to eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes such as rape or child abuse. Personally, I would be opposed, but I imagine that the legislature could get a good deal of public support.
I've just been told that, of all things, NY traffic violations don't have a time limit. NY State is very hard up for cash apparently. They sent a mailing out that I didn't pay a ticket from over 10 years ago. It's an absolute crock, of course. I couldn't have subsequently renewed my license if that was the case and certainly when I moved and applied for a new state's license the suspension would have shown up.
Obviously this doesn't hold for crimes that generate prison time but for ones that can just be resolved by a fine, statutes of limitation are vital limits against politicians out on a crusade to solve their budget crunches.
I agree for the most part, except for one thing -- eyewitness testimony may be "viscerally" compelling, but in fact it's the least accurate and useful form of evidence. Absent physical evidence, almost no amount of eyewitness testimony will get you a conviction, all else being equal.
Yes, I agree that physical evidence can be more accurate; nevertheless, relying wholly on physical evidence removes the human element from the justice system, and I think that element is critical if the sytem is to have widespread acceptance. Because the human element may at times reduce the accuracy of justice, it's important that defendants be given the benefit of the doubt.
"...relying wholly on physical evidence removes the human element from the justice system..."
This statement is ambiguous. It could mean, "...*completely* removes the human element..." or "...removes *some of* the human element..." As these vastly change the meaning of the statement, this isn't just a nitpick.
It's obvious that relying on physical evidence does not *wholly* remove the human element -- after all, it's humans who are interpreting that evidence to determine whether it justifies a guilty verdict.
Since most crimes typically do have some kind of witness testimony, even if there are no eyewitnesses to the criminal event itself (e.g. the night watchman who says he saw someone go into the building half an hour before the body was discovered), that's probably enough of the "human element" for most people, in the sense that you're using "human element."