Parole..

[rpm]

rpm don't kid yourself.
allot of these new DNA cases are smoke and mirrors with a twist of lucky fate for the inmates.

they are required by law to test the evidence as used in the trial samples, they are not allowed to collect current fresh samples from the inmate to test.

now knowing that prior to DNA testing in court cases the samples that were originally gathered were tested then stored but the procedure for storage was in no manner as stringent or reliable as those used today. DNA is very easy to contaminate, it only takes a touch with a dirty glove or a dirty petri dish or a million other things that could happen in a not so clean environment. most evidence is stored in a warehouse environment that is open access to anyone that wishes to inspect it. getting a court order for the viewing of evidence in a past trial is not difficult (this excludes drugs guns money ect). tampering or incompetence is a definite risk.

DNA has proved wondrous for the charging and convicting of modern crimes, but it comes at the cost of releasing those who were convicted in the past who have managed a windfall by having their lawyers, family or friends request a viewing and then later requesting a retest of the bodily fluid samples. DNA cannot be accepted for charging a crime but then rejected for appeal purposes.

if you don't believe how easy it would be to do this, file a petition with the court requesting a viewing of the trial evidence in a rape case from the mid to late nineties. use the excuse that you are doing a web based article on a particular type of crime that this one would be relevant to. once you have the court ordered approval in hand go to the DA or the police dept and give them the judges order. they will make you sign for it, then they will give you a box, tell you that you cannot remove any of the articles from the room, and leave you alone to do what you will. some, only a few will actually recheck the box against the inventory after you return it to be sure that all of the articles are present.

now this may have changed recently, but i know it could be done as recently as three years ago here in NH.

Ya didn't read any of it did you?

I'll make it easy for ya. Here's Henry Wade's Wikipedia page.

That's just one DA.

[FLOTSOM]

yes actually i did read a couple of them, there were to many to want to read them all. but i feel i read enough to get the idea of what you were saying about DNA. but it doesn't change the fact that old samples were not properly safe guarded against future contamination. this project innocent group, well they sound like the standard fanatics that these groups gather. miraculously every inmate that they decide to take up the fight for, but not until they first examine and evaluate the evidence and trial record, proves to be innocent. with odds like theirs, well i want them picking my mega buck numbers.

I'm sure that some in prison are innocent, when i went to prison the first time i didn't commit the crime i was charged with, so it does happen. but i was there, i was apart of the group that committed the crime and i did nothing to prevent it. so factually innocent technically guilty. win some lose some. but there are many standards by which to measure things by and i will always support the risk to a few for the safety of the many.

i don't begrudge any for the time i did for others, i accepted it as the laws of averages. i was caught for this but got away with allot of other things.

Christ was found guilty, but they didn't have our technology back then did they?

the fact of your own argument is that they are doing something to attempt to correct past mistakes aren't they? if the system was as evil as this one DA is made to look then you would know nothing of this and these cases would never go back to court. don't hold the entire system up as evil for the actions of a few.

[rpm]

My arguement was in a perfect world no innocent man would be in prison. You're the one arguing against that.

[sluggish]

Fact:  Prosecutors get and keep their jobs through convictions, not serving justice.

Fact:  There are MANY innocent people in prison.

Don't be so naive.

[CAP1]

In my ideal world if you had an evil thought your brain would explode. 

AAAAhhhhh.....don't sweat it. they're probably pretty close to some sort of chip to zap ya for that

[bongaroo]

this my friend does not exist. every crime, even one you believe has no apparent victim has either a lateral victim who pays for the event or a previous victim to allow the event to take place.

there is always a victim.

now if you said to legalize lesser drugs, regulate and tax them like cigarettes or alcohol then i would agree with you 100%. but currently the use of them, although seemingly without victims, has caused many people collateral damage not immediately apparent to the users.

FLOTSOM

Negative.  The fact that lesser drugs are illegal is what creates the "criminals".  The black market if you will.

Plenty of people know this and have their own silent grows in their basement or attic for them and their friends; not for money or evil intentions.

Anyone have a count for how many people are sitting in our jail system for simple possession?

If someone is doing his time, improving himself with education and work skills, isn't a violent offender, I personally see no reason why they shouldn't be outta jail where we're all paying for their ride and let them get back to life.

[CAP1]

when i went to prison the first time i didn't commit the crime i was charged with, so it does happen. but i was there, i was apart of the group that committed the crime and i did nothing to prevent it. so factually innocent technically guilty. win some lose some. but there are many standards by which to measure things by and i will always support the risk to a few for the safety of the many.

i hate to sound like an arse, but, sir, if you were present for the mentioned crimp, part of the group that committed the crime, and did nothing to stop them, or in some other way, prevent it, then yes sir, you DID commit the crime. you were part of the crime. makes you totally, and completley guilty. you could've walked away, or attempted to stop your friends(?) in some way.
 

[Speed55]

My arguement was in a perfect world no innocent man would be in prison.

And i'll add, that in a perfect world all those found guilty as charged get what's coming to them in a timely fashion, without the possibility of 20 years worth of appeals.

[Nwbie]

You could eliminate a portion of parole by increasing taxes to pay for the 50 or so prisons needed.

[Sixpence]

I feel paroled at the end of every shift

[john9001]

Early history of parole
Alexander Maconochie, a Scottish geographer and captain in the British Royal Navy, introduced the modern idea of parole when, in 1840, he was appointed superintedent of the English penal colonies in Norfolk Island, Australia. He developed a plan to prepare them for eventual return to society that involved three grades. The first two consisted of promotions earned through good behavior, labor, and study. The third grade in the system involved conditional liberty outside of prison while obeying rules. A violation would return them to prison and starting all over again through the ranks of the three grade process.

[bsdaddict]

this my friend does not exist. every crime, even one you believe has no apparent victim has either a lateral victim who pays for the event or a previous victim to allow the event to take place.

there is always a victim.

now if you said to legalize lesser drugs, regulate and tax them like cigarettes or alcohol then i would agree with you 100%. but currently the use of them, although seemingly without victims, has caused many people collateral damage not immediately apparent to the users.

FLOTSOM

I disagree.  Society may invent a victim in order to justify regulations, but that doesn't mean there really is one.  "Crime", in the traditional sense, is an action that violates another individuals rights.  If you take an action that violates my right to life, liberty or property (ex. murder, kidnapping, theft) then a crime has been committed.  Everything else is just regulating behavior.  Vice laws for example, which punish a behavior that society deems unacceptable but doesn't violate any individuals rights, are simply regulations on bahavior.

[john9001]

"Natural-law theory therefore distinguishes between "criminality" (which derives from human nature) and "illegality" (which originates with the interests of those in power). The two concepts are sometimes expressed with the phrases malum in se and malum prohibitum respectively. A crime malum in se is argued to be inherently criminal; whereas a crime malum prohibitum is argued to be criminal only because the law has decreed it so. This view leads to a seeming paradox, that an act can be illegal that is no crime, while a criminal act could be perfectly legal. Many Enlightenment thinkers such as Adam Smith and the American Founding Fathers subscribed to this view to some extent, and it remains influential among so-called classical liberals and libertarians.

crime malum prohibitum is argued to be criminal only because the law has decreed it so. 

it is a crime because a law says it is , not because it is something inherently wrong. Unfortunately most laws on the books are of that type, they are laws that attempt to control not to protect.

[FLOTSOM]

i hate to sound like an arse, but, sir, if you were present for the mentioned crimp, part of the group that committed the crime, and did nothing to stop them, or in some other way, prevent it, then yes sir, you DID commit the crime. you were part of the crime. makes you totally, and completley guilty. you could've walked away, or attempted to stop your friends(?) in some way.
 

no you do not sound like an arse, it is the same opinion of society at large, which is why i went to prison for it.

my statement was in reffence to my direct actions and participation guilt of a crime. i had no action in the in the event. i did not commit or take any direct part in the crime, i was actually half a block away talking to someone else entirely when it occurred. but i was a part of the group that did commit it, and i had a very good reason to believe that it would happen if nothing was done to prevent it. in my mind at the time (and to be honest even today) the person was gonna get what they deserved. so i accepted my responsibility in the event, omission of an act of prevention is as culpable an act as the performance of a direct action.

i think what i was trying do get a cross in my comment is that there are varying levels of what guilt or innocent is. that allot of those who cry innocence because they had no direct action in a particular event, are in reality as guilty those committing the act personally. which is why i said factually innocent(taking no part of) technically guilty(failing to prevent). i had no action in the event, but.......

so i agree with you sir, i would have convicted me too.

Negative. The fact that lesser drugs are illegal is what creates the "criminals". The black market if you will.

Plenty of people know this and have their own silent grows in their basement or attic for them and their friends; not for money or evil intentions.

If someone is doing his time, improving himself with education and work skills, isn't a violent offender, I personally see no reason why they shouldn't be outta jail where we're all paying for their ride and let them get back to life.

this is the argument of the age, i disagree with your creation theory. is it because of the laws that rape or burglary are wrong? what about murder, we just decriminalize it and all will be OK? evil in tention is an intentional violation of law, that is what it means. so when you knowingly commit any act in violation of any law your action are intentionally against the greater good. what is law must be supported until it is legally changed. if not then the few who are willing to break the law will rule the land and the rest will suffer for it. they voted it illegal, there for until it is changed by vote it shall remain illegal whether or not you and i agree with them that it should be.

now morally as in regards to lesser drugs i agree with you, legalize it and leave the people alone.

i agree completely with your statement about getting a person of good behavior out of jail and off the tax paying meal ticket.

I disagree.  Society may invent a victim in order to justify regulations, but that doesn't mean there really is one.  "Crime", in the traditional sense, is an action that violates another individuals rights.  If you take an action that violates my right to life, liberty or property (ex. murder, kidnapping, theft) then a crime has been committed.  Everything else is just regulating behavior.  Vice laws for example, which punish a behavior that society deems unacceptable but doesn't violate any individuals rights, are simply regulations on behavior.

technically a crime is anything that is in contradiction to the greater good. All laws are regulatory in their nature. we live in a society that votes its laws into power, the greater good carries the vote by numbers. i do not agree with all of the laws, but that changes nothing. society would fall apart and end in chaos if we allowed people to pick and chose what laws they will abide by. we live in a society, a collective group of people, as an individual we must live up to that societies standards or be willing to accept the consequences of our actions.

old proverb, "don't do the crime if you cant do the time". sounds lame but it is true. if you don't want to face the possible consequences of your actions then don't commit them.

i morally agree with you, but i understand that the law is the law. if you don't like it as it is work on changing it not just breaking it.

 

it is a crime because a law says it is , not because it is something inherently wrong. Unfortunately most laws on the books are of that type, they are laws that attempt to control not to protect.

very well put sir!!!!!!

but i believe the they are laws that try to protect by attempting to control.

Wonderful conversation guys

i <SALUTE> all of your opinions

FLOTSOM

[bsdaddict]

this is the argument of the age, i disagree with your creation theory. is it because of the laws that rape or burglary are wrong? what about murder, we just decriminalize it and all will be OK?

ummm, no.  Rape and murder are "wrong" because they violate another individual's rights, not because a law says they're wrong.  Take away the laws and rape and murder are still wrong.

evil in tention is an intentional violation of law, that is what it means.

so, when you drive 65 in a 55 your intentions are evil?  diaf evil-doer!

what is law must be supported until it is legally changed.

ORLY?  St. Augustine said "An unjust law is no law at all" and that sentiment was echoed by the founding fathers, MLK,  and countless others.  Nazi Germany had lots of laws, would you have felt morally bound to follow 'em all?  If you were living in post-civil-war America, would you have felt morally bound to turn in any slaves you discovered to be trying to escape their "owners" via the underground railroad?  Face it, man, sometimes the law is just plain wrong and a moral person has an OBLIGATION to resist them.  By your arguement we'd still be a British colony, no?