DNA Revisited - Should Re-tests be Allowed?
The question sometimes looms large.....particularly when a life is involved. Convicted and tests "prove", but then new evidence becomes available, or some slant indicates the original tests might have been not to the highest standards.One of the questions seems to be.....WHY? Why do the folks who "got the conviction" seem so absolutely obsessed with making sure there are no re-tests allowed?
Their arguement is always, "it has been done".....but, if they, as the representatives for the law, are opposed to re-tests, is it because they really feel the tests are just extra "stuff", or, perhaps, they are really afraid they will be proven wrong.
If it were me I should like to be proven wrong if it involved someone sentenced to death or even life....or perhaps, even a few years.
Ego gains position here as these lawyers are almost to-the-man/woman seeking advancement of their prosecutorial career through the convictions they obtained. Sometimes innocent or guilty may take a back seat.
Too bad these folks do not REALLY believe in our laws and their protection of the "innocent"...even if once convicted.
Duke
posted by Duke of DeLand @ 1/02/2006 06:38:00 PM
<< Home