# Why do people get upset when new DNA tests frees someone from prison? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 31, 2013, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-get-upset-when-new-dna-tests-frees-someone-from-prison/648860 "2013-01-31T01:06:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-get-upset-when-new-dna-tests-frees-someone-from-prison/648860/21 "2013-01-31T19:42:03Z")
Perhaps, but I don’t exactly feel bad when said stalker gets accused of murder. You kinda find yourself hoping he did it, since it gives you that sense of justice, that the world is an understandable place. Some random guy who we have no evidence of just doesn’t come around and kill people–that’s just not right. I’m not saying I’d go so far as to fight against someone being exonerated by the evidence, but I do understand the sense of disappointment. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-get-upset-when-new-dna-tests-frees-someone-from-prison/648860/22 "2013-01-31T22:26:24Z")
Sometimes it’s because they have other evidence that makes them certain the accused did it, and the dna evidence isn’t actually conclusive. I’m not sure how that could be the case here, since it’d be hard for him to avoid leaving dna in a bite mark, but I don’t know anything about the case other than what’s in that article. In general, though, I think it’s just that, once people have decided someone’s guilty, it’s really difficult to persuade them otherwise. I’ve seen it happen with much lesser crimes - someone is accused of stealing and completely exonerated, but still every time something else goes missing, eyes point to them. They might say something about “no smoke without fire,” not realising they were actually blinded by fog. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Perhaps some people are upset\* about this ruling because they’re convinced on other grounds that Prade was guilty. The trial news link posted earlier shows that he was a stalker who entered the victim’s home and made death threats against her: > > "Douglas Prade responded with verbal abuse, calling Margo Prade a “fat bitch,” and making threats against her. > > “I can do away with you and nobody will know,” he said. “I’ve got something for your ass,” he said on another occasion." > > It doesn’t sound to me like the DNA evidence points to anyone else, but that it doesn’t match the ex-husband. I was under the impression that you could not 100% conclusively determine that a bite mark matches someone’s teeth, so there was likely prosecutorial overreach on that point. Little choice but to free someone who likely was guilty in the first place. > > \*What puzzles me are people who get upset about DNA evidence being used to match suspects to crimes and who wave their hands about “lab errors”, but are perfectly satisfied with the science when it exonerates someone. :dubious: I’m confused - he was stalking his own wife in their own home? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-get-upset-when-new-dna-tests-frees-someone-from-prison/648860/23 "2013-02-01T01:33:08Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > People shouldn’t use DNA testing as some magic talisman that divines the truth. Rather, that’s what a trial is for–both sides get to present all their best evidence and cross-examine the other side, and then the jury decides, and that’s the truth. It ain’t perfect, but it’s better than a lot of other ways of doing it. I can see how people could get upset when that whole process gets de-railed years later just because of some DNA evidence and arguments from doe-eyed undergraduates or law students (i.e., the Innocence Project). > > For example, in the case discussed in the OP, all we have now is that DNA evidence shows this guy didn’t bite the victim’s arm. That doesn’t mean he didn’t kill her. There must be more going on here than the article discusses–I don’t see how a judge could simply say “oh, he wasn’t the biter? Then he wasn’t the shooter–release him.” DNA, if done correctly, proves who a biological a example, DNA from a rape/murder does not prove who the killer was or wasn’t. There could be a separate rapist. There could have been consensual sex prior to the crime. What it does is establish a link in the chain. It proves that a specific person had sex with the victim. It is up to the prosecution to build the rest of the chain and convince the jury that it is sound. The inverse is the case for exonerations. If DNA shows that someone else had sex and that breaks the chain, then an exoneration is in order. If there is additional evidence that was never presented at trial, or a new theory of the crime still implicates the same person, then a retrial is in order. If the only thing linking him directly to the crime was the bite, then there is no doubt this is the correct decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-get-upset-when-new-dna-tests-frees-someone-from-prison/648860.md?page=1)