Why wouldn’t any form of indirect identification work? Well, under the theory behind the indictment of a DNA profile (the shakiness of which I agree with Bricker upon), the DNA profile does identify a specific person – other forms of i.d. may not. So a DNA profile represents a different level of reliability vis a vis identification. And I will say that, no matter how often some junk scientists have tried to argue it’s not reliable, DNA evidence has been taken judicial notice of in most jurisdictions – that is, the only questions you can raise about DNA evidence relate to chain-of-custody – that is, what links the sample to the scene. Or of course, to argue that there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why the defendant’s semen/blood/hair was on the victim. You can’t argue that the sample doesn’t match the defendant.
So it is fairly powerful stuff.
Again, I don’t like this procedural end-run around a statute of limitations, but it isn’t quite the same as indicting “the person who committed the crime,” without anything further.
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
Hepzibah: I’m not arguing against the quality of DNA evidence. It is a very accurate form of establishing identification. But it’s only valid if you can match it against the actual body of a person.
I assert that the validity of the indictment depends not on the theoretical accuracy of the match, but upon the unambiguous communication to me specifically that I am officially accused.
I assume that if I’m indicted in absentia by name I have an obligation to turn myself in submit to a trial. If I’m identified secretly, or by indirect means that I have no idea whether or not I fulfill (since I don’t know the details of my own genetic code), how can I know to turn myself in?
It is the naming of me in the indictment that forces the obligation, not the fact that I might have actually committed the crime.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
One of the interesting, and, in my opinion, unfortunate, sidelights to our intense dislike of ‘sexual predator’ crimes is that there is a growing movement to have the statute of limitations regarding rape removed. According to an article this week in USA Today, California is among the states working on a change in the statute, perhaps allowing DNA indictment to toll the limitation. This is, of course, nothing more than an attempt to remove from accused rapists the protections once felt important for all but those accused of the most heinous crimes (e.g., murder).
Another interesting highlight: using civil commitment proceedings to keep sexual predators imprisoned after their term is up.
It’s theoretically a civil proceeding, not a criminal one, so double jeopardy is not implicated… but the molestor or rapist is essentially kept locked up even though his original sentence is served.
The legislature has every right to set an appropriate punishment for rape and molestation - and I agree that life in prison is very appropriate!
What bothers me, even though I think the result is laudable, is the “end-run” around the basic concept that we cannot increase the punishment for the crime after the crime is committed. By characterizing the continued confinement as “civil committment” rather than criminal, the state essentially gets around the law.
Yes, Bricker, the “end-run” nature of the solution is what discomforts me about indicting a genetic profile – it’s an attempt to circumvent something else passed by the legislature for different reasons.
In a lot of ways, of course, pedophiles are outside the boc of out criminal system. My understanding is that many are in fact incurable. So, they are very like the kind of compulsive serial killers who are never safe to have out. And yet our legal system is simply not designed to cope with unrehabilitatable (sorry, I know there’s a better word - irremediable?) people. Maybe this kind of band-aid solution will inevitably form part of the safety net supposedly offered by the criminal justice system, no matter how we try to shift the law to accomodate our needs.
I still don’t like it - I prefer ethical and legal consistency.
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
There’s a good reason for the statute of limitations.
If I accuse you of a jewlery store robbery that happened at 8:00 PM last Sunday, you might easily be able to produce an alibi. Your friends will all remember that this was the Sunday you all got together and watched the game.
But if I accuse you of a jewelry store robbery that happened at 8:00 PM May 12th, 1984, what’s your defense?
Witnesses get stale over time, and it becomes almost impossible for you to defend yourself with any sort of an alibi for a crime that happned that many years ago.
I offer this only to show that there’s a basic fairness consideration which a statute of limitations seeks to address.
Because, rapists (for example) don’t normally get life sentences (rightly or wrongly); determining who is not susceptible to rehabilitation is extremely difficult. So you’d be imposing a life sentence grossly disproportionate for some people, who can be “cured,” while making sure you keep in the incorrigible, who cannot. This is a tricky balance.
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
I’ve always understood that there was no statutue of limitations on murder because of its heinous nature. If another crime is equally heinous, why can’t the legislature revoke/amend the statute of limitations for that crime as well? If that’s the intent of The People, then shouldn’t it come from the legislature directly instead of trying to subvert ordinary procedure?
Not that any of our criminal justice system is made to be efficient, but life imprisonment with the possibility of parole does seem to provide some degree of balance. If a person appears “rehabilitated” they can be released on parole. If they screw up, they can be returned to jail with a minimum of procedure.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
There is one simple reason why a DNA profile should not be used to indict a person. There is a possibility that the DNA profile may match more than one person - the case where the suspect is an identical twin (or triplet, etc.).
So what is the law supposed to do in that case - indict BOTH of them? Then you would be guaranteed to indict at least one innocent person.
The DNA profile is not a unique description, unlike providing a person’s name, address, etc.
-m
What about a life sentence and no statute of limitations? Seems pretty straightforward to me.