Quote:
Originally Posted by accyman
why do people always drag up very old cases from before we had the technology we have now, if DNA evidence is good enough to free previously convicted criminals im pretty sure DNA evidence is good enough to condem a person today.
cant seem to win with some people, they accept DNA evidence to free wrongly convicted people but cant acccept DNA evidence to condem somone  |
Sorry, I didn't realise vigilante mobs had DNA evidence at their fingertips. Presumably, they carefully weigh up all the forensic evidence, with the help of detailed case notes, before carefully considering who the guilty person is. After all, vigilantes are generally of quite a high intellectual standard...like the ones who attacked a paediatrician's office, because they thought that was the same as being a paedophile.
As for not accepting, DNA evidence to convict an offender, could you direct me to the post where I've supported that? Strangely enough, I can't seem to remember it.