I haven’t been following this story, but something obvious comes to mind? Since they refuse a DNA test, IIRC, why not bust their collective massive ass…isn’t cloning a human still illegal? Send them to rot in jail…this way, we’ll put the burden of proof on them to prove they really didn’t clone a human! - Jinx :mad:
Of course, it’s a fake. But I don’t think there are any laws about human cloning yet (in the U.S., at any rate).
Ah yes, that’s what I’ll name my band–“The Cult That Clones?” Thanks.
There’s no law in the US that makes cloning illegal as far as I know. The federal government won’t fund anything that does human cloning, though.
Wait a second! My wife and I could swear that Congress flat-out passed a law forbiddening the act of human cloning? Did we fall into a black-hole or something here??? - Jinx 
Point A:
As has been mentioned, I don’t think cloning humans is specifically illegal in the USA.
Point B:
Even if it was, they won’t say where the operation took place, but most likely it’s not in the United States.
Point C:
Even if cloning was a crime and they were stupid enough to break that law in the U.S. of A., that still wouldn’t put the burden of proof on them. IANAL, but when the police bust you for a crime, the burden of proof is on the D.A. to show that you broke the law - not on you to prove that you didn’t.
Here’s the first hit for this band:
The Cult that clones
Takes seeds from the bones
Leaves science to proves who owns
These baby clown clones
We’re drinking beer
With the profs of chem I fear
Maybe when we sober up we’ll steer
Real science away far and clear…
- Jinx
You missed my point. They’re claiming they DID clone. And, let’s pretend it IS illegal. So, we obviously find them guilty of cloning. Now, unless they’d like to chill out in jail, wouldn’t they be willing to cooperate to prove they DID NOT break the law? (Thereby admiting their fraud.) - Jinx
From a Jan. 11 article:
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of `Burden of Proof’ here.
In all criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the prosecutor. That means the prosecution (in this case, the Federal Government) has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt two things:
[ol]
[li]The crime the defendent is being charged with actually occurred.[/li][li]The defendent committed that crime.[/li][/ol]
If they can’t do both, their case falls flat and the defendent walks. Period. All the defense has to do is answer all of the prosecution’s allegations with something that provides the jury with a reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.
In the hypothetical trial of The Federal Government v Clonaid, the Federal government would have to prove that Clonaid did, in fact, clone a human being and that such cloning is contrary to a law that existed when Clonaid created the clone. (“Congress shall pass no ex post facto law.” – US Constitution) Even if the prosecution could prove the first part (that the cloning took place), it will never be able to prove the second (that it was illegal when it happened).
The case is dead on arrival.
s/“cloning is contrary”/“cloning was contrary”/
Sorry.