Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

Mister Adequate posted:

Oh I'm sorry, I used the term "factual innocence" and states are absolutely interested in an objective and unbiased review of such cases, in no way deliberately sabotaging efforts to demonstrate a wrongful conviction. So the actual legal term factual innocence is not something I can demonstrate and, of course, this means no innocent person, or person whose prosecution falls far short of the truly high bar needed to warrant execution, has ever been executed.

e; ^^^ Of course they do, that's what I'm bloody well angry about. I'm saying they shouldn't. I don't honestly know if that is possible, but it should be aimed for nevertheless.

I'm an opponent of the death penalty, but you should pick a better example. Quick googling shows that the sample in the article you're referring to was tested in 2006, and it was a match for the man that was executed.

This is the reference Wikipedia uses: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-12-dna-virginia_x.htm

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread