Stephen Russell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Supreme Court Denies DNA Evidence To Potentially Innocent Man >> >> http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/scotus-dna/ >> ( -or- http://bit.ly/eDCMT ) >> >> Imagine that: evidence exists that could either exonerate an >> innocent >> man, or verify a guilty man's conviction, but Chief Justice John >> Roberts because it might risk "overthrowing the established system of >> justice". >> >> Think about that: not rocking the boat is more important than >> freeing >> an innocent man. >> >> The damage of the Bush administration continues to mount... >> >> > --------------------------------------- > > I thought that it was a move to STOP every blasted incarcerated person from > filing a motion that demands a retrial. > > The cost to taxpayers for repeat performances would cripple just about any > county, or city court system. > > Second part is there enough evidence remaining that both sides can make > their own tests? Or is there just enough for one side? > > Do I think it is wrong? Possibly. Why? Because for every 100 imprisoned > persons who yells that they are innocent, is there one or maybe five of them > that are correct. So we have to go through everyone to find the one? > > Facts, facts! Always facts before opinion! How much does a DNA test cost? How much does keeping an inmate cost per year? How many more years must he be in jail? After you answer these question there will probably not be much room for opinion.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
