ChatterBank1 min ago
Sir Cliff Joins Fair Campaign......
21 Answers
.....but I think they should be campaigning for the anonimity to be permanent unless/until someone if found guilty and sentenced. I believe that should be the case for all crime, not just crimes of a sexual nature. I also believe that DNA should not be admissable as evidence and stipulations about it's use should be included in the caution when being arrested, along the lines of "You do not have to provide a sample of DNA, but failure to do so etc..."
I further believe, as stated on here recently, that anyone above the age of criminal responsibility, who becomes deceased, should have their DNA checked against the datbase of unsolved crimes, where such DNA is available.
https:/
I further believe, as stated on here recently, that anyone above the age of criminal responsibility, who becomes deceased, should have their DNA checked against the datbase of unsolved crimes, where such DNA is available.
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It would be good if 10CS might come back and help us out because I, along with others, find this post both confusing and puzzling.
DNA matching is the greatest advance in the detection of crime since fingerprints (and is considerably more versatile). Quite why anybody should want evidence provided by it to be inadmissable is a mystery to me.
DNA matching is the greatest advance in the detection of crime since fingerprints (and is considerably more versatile). Quite why anybody should want evidence provided by it to be inadmissable is a mystery to me.
^ except in a case like this.
One defendant (Shivers) was convicted and later the appeal court overturned it....
https:/
One defendant (Shivers) was convicted and later the appeal court overturned it....
https:/
Many victims of sexual crimes are frightened to report them, and often when they do they are not believed.
The sexual predators (especially "famous" ones like Savile, Weinstein, Harris) love this situation, and anonymity would please them even more because publicity gives their other victims the incentive to report their misdemeanours.
The sexual predators (especially "famous" ones like Savile, Weinstein, Harris) love this situation, and anonymity would please them even more because publicity gives their other victims the incentive to report their misdemeanours.
>Because someones' DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime.
Of course. But if it means they can be included in the investigation at the time then that is helpful. Waiting until after they have died isn't much use- just because someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime, and it's too late to interview them to get more info.
Of course. But if it means they can be included in the investigation at the time then that is helpful. Waiting until after they have died isn't much use- just because someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime, and it's too late to interview them to get more info.
10CS: "Because someones' DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime." - that is true it's not the holy grail of certainty of guilt but , like finger prints, it's a very useful tool. If someone's DNA is present they'll need to have an explanation of how it got there. To take that investigatory tool away is folly.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.