So much for DNA testing to free innocent men from lifetime in prison.

Raziaar

Raziaar

I Hate Custom Titles
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
29,769
Reaction score
140
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=2&hpw

Jesus Christ. What a ****ing stupid ruling.

This is going to have some serious blowback in the future.

WASHINGTON — Prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.
Click to expand...

“For reasons the state has been unable or unwilling to articulate,” Justice Stevens wrote, “it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.”
Click to expand...


What are we, a ****ing country that wants to imprison somebody for the crime even if it's not the god damn guy? I don't know anything about this case in the article, but for other cases I do have strong ****ing feelings about the ability for innocent people to be proven innocent by DNA evidence. It's shown before that it can help free innocent men who were wrongfully convicted. And they can't even do it even if it's with their own money?

But now... those men will rot.

This pisses me off to no end.
 
That pisses me off too.

America is going downhill.

There goes the whole "Every man has the right to a even trial and jury" or whatever it is called.
 
Your title is somewhat misleading in that there's no assurance that Osborne is innocent or not.
 
Darkside55 said:
Your title is somewhat misleading in that there's no assurance that Osborne is innocent or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant to say men, not man.

This outrage I have isn't about Osborne. It's about other people who this will affect.

I went and edited the title to be men instead of man.
 
The only people who benefit from this are prosecutors and judges who don't want their own convictions overturned, harming their records and calling their rulings into question. It's absolutely abhorrent that this has been allowed to happen.
 
I found Alito's argument to be flimsy to the point of absurdity. "Criminals with nothing to lose could use this to mess with the justice system in the hopes of contaminated results!"
 
Didn't something like this happen recently? A guy did 30 years in prison and then was proven to be innocent. I don't remember all of the details.
 
X Hokey Pokey X said:
Didn't something like this happen recently? A guy did 30 years in prison and the was proven to be innocent. I don't remember all of the details.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it happens. Innocent people get convicted, and many many years later they have been freed due to DNA evidence, found as innocent men.

THAT won't happen anymore.

So much for the phrase, "I'd rather a dozen guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned." Now it just seems to be, "I want people to go to prison and stay there, guilty or not."
 
“For reasons the state has been unable or unwilling to articulate,” Justice Stevens wrote
Click to expand...
Laudable. Truly transparent justice at work.
 
So much for sperm coating the crime scene and testing the DNA to capture the guy.
 
they just don't want to give the innocent ones compensation for all that time in jail.
 
*plays the song "jailbreak"*
 
The real issue here is, does the government have the responsibility to spend countless dollars provng someone's innocence after they have proven their guilt. Sure, DNA testing has vindicated a couple hundred prisoners, but there are over two milliobn people in prisons in the USA. Should the federal gov't. spend five hundred quadrillion dollars proving their innocence?

So this ruling just means the prisoners themselves, or a charitable organization, has to pay for the testing.
 
ThunderDawg said:
The real issue here is, does the government have the responsibility to spend countless dollars provng someone's innocence after they have proven their guilt. Sure, DNA testing has vindicated a couple hundred prisoners, but there are over two milliobn people in prisons in the USA. Should the federal gov't. spend five hundred quadrillion dollars proving their innocence?

So this ruling just means the prisoners themselves, or a charitable organization, has to pay for the testing.
Click to expand...

No... because if you read it, it says that even at their own expense, it is forbidden. They are unable to pay for the testing themselves.


“For reasons the state has been unable or unwilling to articulate,” Justice Stevens wrote, “it refuses to allow Osborne to test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all.”
 
I don't understand and am having trouble believing some of the changes the US government has been making lately. It's one constitutional protection after another being revoked on a whim. It's frightening when you see where this is going.

Why would they want to chance imprisoning innocent people?

We are going backwards! :angry:
 
VirusType2 said:
I don't understand and am having trouble believing some of the changes the US government has been making lately. It's one constitutional protection after another being revoked on a whim. It's frightening when you see where this is going.

Why would they want to chance imprisoning innocent people?

We are going backwards! :angry:
Click to expand...

Dark Ages 2.0 buddy. when you really look at the big picture today's time is very sad. I bought a 20 pack of water today and was just cringing because i knew some kid in some country might not even have a drop of water all day and here i am chugging the good old H20 down my throat. Also I'm fearful with what Obama has plans for cyber crimes. he'll probably enact some stupid new office and appoint another 10 people with $100,000+ saleries and tons of people will be hauled away because they can search your HDDs anytime they want now
 
VirusType2 said:
I don't understand and am having trouble believing some of the changes the US government has been making lately. It's one constitutional protection after another being revoked on a whim. It's frightening when you see where this is going.

Why would they want to chance imprisoning innocent people?

We are going backwards! :angry:
Click to expand...

It starts with guns.
 
V-Man339 said:
It starts with guns.
Click to expand...

Come on, now I'm not big on politics at all, but the way I see it, it starts with holding government responsible by having the balls to impeach them if necessary and electing people into government that will actually do what they say instead of lying to get votes and then doing whatever they want. It seems campaign promises are almost meaningless. We should assume we know how they will vote on bills judging by their history of voting as a senator, for example.

For presidents, I think they should be required to list who they will hire for their staff should they be elected. Instead of 'surprise!'.

I also think that - perhaps, since the president is supposed to be doing the will of the majority of voters, that there should be some input from the voters before a president can veto or sign in a new bill.
 
V-Man339 said:
It starts with guns.
Click to expand...

It starts with Dick Cheney.

darth_cheney_vader_fight_bw300w.jpg
 
Raziaar said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=2&hpw

Jesus Christ. What a ****ing stupid ruling.

This is going to have some serious blowback in the future.






What are we, a ****ing country that wants to imprison somebody for the crime even if it's not the god damn guy? I don't know anything about this case in the article, but for other cases I do have strong ****ing feelings about the ability for innocent people to be proven innocent by DNA evidence. It's shown before that it can help free innocent men who were wrongfully convicted. And they can't even do it even if it's with their own money?

But now... those men will rot.

This pisses me off to no end.
Click to expand...


Granted my perspective may be skewed but US justice seems to be more of a vengeance based system rather then a justice based system. I may be wrong but that's how it comes across so its no surprise that once someone is behind bars they like to keep it that way.
 
nurizeko said:
I may be wrong but that's how it comes across so its no surprise that once someone is behind bars they like to keep it that way.
Click to expand...
You offer no explanation why they would like to keep innocent people imprisoned.
nurizeko said:
Well for a start innocent men are behind bars yet you are not.
Click to expand...
So, you've got no reasoning for it, you just have a gut feeling.

And what kind of remark is that? Maybe you could be an ace detective if you got some dirt on me while sitting at your desk in Scotland. Eat shit.
 
I can't help thinking this might have something to do with it.

It probably doesn't directly relate to this ruling, though.
 
I believe that if the inmate has a source of funding, he/she should be allowed to attempt to prove his/her innocence if he/she feels they were wrongly convicted. I don't believe in wasting tax payer's dollars on it in these tough times however. Maybe in the future if the economy ever improves, which I doubt will happen anytime soon.
 
Warped said:
Dark Ages 2.0 buddy. when you really look at the big picture today's time is very sad. I bought a 20 pack of water today and was just cringing because i knew some kid in some country might not even have a drop of water all day and here i am chugging the good old H20 down my throat. Also I'm fearful with what Obama has plans for cyber crimes. he'll probably enact some stupid new office and appoint another 10 people with $100,000+ saleries and tons of people will be hauled away because they can search your HDDs anytime they want now
Click to expand...

It's always been that.

Minus the Obama thing.
 
VirusType2 said:
I also think that - perhaps, since the president is supposed to be doing the will of the majority of voters, that there should be some input from the voters before a president can veto or sign in a new bill.
Click to expand...
That's already been tried, and it failed. It's called a direct democracy. Apparently, politicians back then didn't think average citizens are informed/smart enough to make important decisions after a bunch of riots that nearly toppled Washington involving tax raises and tariffs, that's why the House and electoral colleges. (and they were right)

Modern technology like the news and internets didn't make anyone smarter or better informed either, it just provided a faster, more efficient way for people to broadcast their stupidity.

Also, don't think for a minute that those bills that established the electoral colleges need reform. Large groups of people aren't any more civilized than they were 200 years ago.
 
Saturos said:
Also, don't think for a minute that those bills that established the electoral colleges need reform. Large groups of people aren't any more civilized than they were 200 years ago.
Click to expand...
Relative populations of the States have changed though.

ThunderDawg said:
The real issue here is, does the government have the responsibility to spend countless dollars provng someone's innocence after they have proven their guilt. Sure, DNA testing has vindicated a couple hundred prisoners, but there are over two milliobn people in prisons in the USA. Should the federal gov't. spend five hundred quadrillion dollars proving their innocence?

So this ruling just means the prisoners themselves, or a charitable organization, has to pay for the testing.
Click to expand...
Inventing up numbers is certainly the best way to make a point.

Profiling costs <$200 commercially in the US. Goverment doing them in bulk it'd be cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top