Constitutional Right for DNA testing?
-
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.
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
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
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?
-
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.
-
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
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?
Luck is Tim Couch. Big, Dumb Goofy, slow thinking QB - Ghoolie, 2-28-12 -
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.
-
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?
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
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
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?
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
lesser of two evils.
That is exactly the message above.
-
Still waiting KFP.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login