Strive For Unbiased DNA Database: Guardian commentary writer, Gavin Phillipson, discusses the incomplete national DNA database and his solution to make solving a crime more than just chance. DNA evidence is an essential tool to solving crimes, but if a person is not in a DNA database, the evidence will not lead authorities to them. The British Government is now proposing to keep the the DNA of those never proven guilty for only six years. Then they will dump it. Phillipson does not see the government's proposal as a workable solution. He believes instead of limiting people from the database, they should be including everyone. According to Phillipson, not only would an all inclusive database "radically increas[e] its effectiveness", but it would also eliminate the claim that the database singles out minorities.
NY Terrorist Trial: The WaPo has two contrasting pieces on AG Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed et al. in civilian court in New York. Charles Krauthammer blasts the decision, saying it gives the terrorists a second round of propaganda for one deed. "Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: '9/11, The Director's Cut,' narration by KSM." On the other hand, former Bush Administration DoJ officials James Comey and Jack Goldsmith surprisingly make a better case for Holder's decision than Holder did.
Tulsa Police Using DNA to Solve Non-Violent Crimes: Tulsa's KOTV writer Lori Fullbright reports on the success of Tulsa police solving property crime by using DNA evidence. In the past month, 10 burglaries have been solved with DNA evidence. Detectives say that you would not believe how much DNA burglars leave at a crime scene. Sgt. Brandon Watkins says, "Some leave behind clothes; their hat will come off or their gloves come off. They'll do something to leave behind large amounts of DNA: throw a cigarette down, spit - people leave behind traces." Officers hope that the new method of crime solving will deter crime.
Brain Scan to Determine Guilt or Innocence: Ingfei Chen writes in the Stanford report that brain-scanning lie detection technology has debuted in justice system. In two cases, in California and New York, defendants accused of first-degree murder, were able to receive the lesser charge of manslaughter after presenting brain scans that established diminished capacity. Although brain scans have been used in criminal proceedings, some believe that the science is not reliable enough to be used. Law Professor Hank Greely stated that maybe society will someday find a technological solution to lie detection, "but we need to demand the highest standards of proof before we ruin people's lives based on its application." The legal consequences could be a problem. For example, does a brain scan invade a defendant's right to privacy or the Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. In United States v. Scheffer, four justices said that a lie detection test, regardless of accuracy, should not be admitted into federal court because it would infringe on the jury's role as the human "lie detector" in the courtroom. Most likely the evidence of a brain scan will be used to predict recidivism rather than find guilt or innocence. Parole boards have started to use evidence based on predictions of behavior, and a brain scan could be an effective predictor of recidivism. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is presiding over the Law and Neuroscience research project, says, "Our jails are overloaded, and they are overloaded with people who have committed drug crimes. So it just becomes enormously important to figure out how people get addicted to drugs and what we can do to sever that connection if we can."
NY Terrorist Trial: The WaPo has two contrasting pieces on AG Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed et al. in civilian court in New York. Charles Krauthammer blasts the decision, saying it gives the terrorists a second round of propaganda for one deed. "Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: '9/11, The Director's Cut,' narration by KSM." On the other hand, former Bush Administration DoJ officials James Comey and Jack Goldsmith surprisingly make a better case for Holder's decision than Holder did.
Tulsa Police Using DNA to Solve Non-Violent Crimes: Tulsa's KOTV writer Lori Fullbright reports on the success of Tulsa police solving property crime by using DNA evidence. In the past month, 10 burglaries have been solved with DNA evidence. Detectives say that you would not believe how much DNA burglars leave at a crime scene. Sgt. Brandon Watkins says, "Some leave behind clothes; their hat will come off or their gloves come off. They'll do something to leave behind large amounts of DNA: throw a cigarette down, spit - people leave behind traces." Officers hope that the new method of crime solving will deter crime.
Brain Scan to Determine Guilt or Innocence: Ingfei Chen writes in the Stanford report that brain-scanning lie detection technology has debuted in justice system. In two cases, in California and New York, defendants accused of first-degree murder, were able to receive the lesser charge of manslaughter after presenting brain scans that established diminished capacity. Although brain scans have been used in criminal proceedings, some believe that the science is not reliable enough to be used. Law Professor Hank Greely stated that maybe society will someday find a technological solution to lie detection, "but we need to demand the highest standards of proof before we ruin people's lives based on its application." The legal consequences could be a problem. For example, does a brain scan invade a defendant's right to privacy or the Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. In United States v. Scheffer, four justices said that a lie detection test, regardless of accuracy, should not be admitted into federal court because it would infringe on the jury's role as the human "lie detector" in the courtroom. Most likely the evidence of a brain scan will be used to predict recidivism rather than find guilt or innocence. Parole boards have started to use evidence based on predictions of behavior, and a brain scan could be an effective predictor of recidivism. Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is presiding over the Law and Neuroscience research project, says, "Our jails are overloaded, and they are overloaded with people who have committed drug crimes. So it just becomes enormously important to figure out how people get addicted to drugs and what we can do to sever that connection if we can."
Leave a comment