From: Charlie Stross (charlie@antipope.org)
Date: Wed Jul 31 2002 - 11:14:43 MDT
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:19:19AM -0700, Charles Hixson wrote:
> Quibble: This argument is approximately correct, but it assumes that the
> DNA evidence is 100% accurate.
> ....... Now if the person was convicted without reference to DNA evicence,
> then this is a quite reasonable approach.
Clarification: this was an after-the-fact use of DNA testing of evidence
to check the accuracy of trials conducted before DNA testing was available.
A number of people convicted of murder and executed have received posthumous
pardons as a result.
One may _hope_ that modern court procedures are more effective, but I
wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
-- Charlie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:48 MST