Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: DNA - very dodgy
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
The Cat |
Oddly enough I was just thinking about that, having seen a police officer on TV reading that part of the accused's 'rights'. It does create a kind of dual standard - i.e. we can remain silent but if we do it means we'll be assumed to be guilty. If a statement is factual then why should it matter when it is given? Surely facts should take precedence over procedure. Courts are, after all, dealing with human life.
In one of my all time favourite movies - 'Twelve Angry Men', I was always impressed as a child by Henry Fonda pointing out that the accused could remain silent all through the trial because it's up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defendent. Alas, we seem to have moved a long way from that position. |
|
In The Know |
Even the "right to silence" is not what it was ... as you cannot produce evidence later if you have not produced it at the time of questioning (I think thats right - maybe someone can confirm?) |
|
The Cat |
I imagine suspects will still have a right to silence. 42 days of not having the questions answered, followed by more days of not having questions answered. I guess some police officers might find that fun. Keeps them off the streets.
Seem to recall that Michael Howard tried to abolish the right to silence but was ruled to be acting outside of the law by High Court judges. So, at least this right has some protection.
I hope the government is defeated. |
|
In The Know |
The new "terror" law going through Parliament today (actually its meant to terrorize US !) will (according to Home Sec Jaquie Smith) rely heavily on DNA evidence (and also continued questioning AFTER charge - something currently banned).
Given that they want 42 days of questioning BEFORE a possible charge, and will continue interrogation afterwards too, can this be an infringement of the Geneva Convention ? |
|
JK2006 |
see the Times story today.
All those people in prison due to DNA may now be released.
Sometimes one wonders if all the inmates who swear they are innocent may indeed be so.
And when a jury is told DNA is infallible they should now be informed another word for it is bollocks. |
|
|
|
