That's a great movie, really, it is. Had to watch it in college biology, and it was great.
Anyway, There is all this talk of the Duke Lacrosse team, and while I try to shy away from controversial issues on my blog, I prefer to be the author of fluff. However, DNA testing has long been an issue with which i struggle.
I believe in the concept that we are innocent until proven guilty, that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt. I should not have to take a DNA test to prove my innocence. I could, easily take a DNA test and prove my innocence, but that's not my responsibilty to prove my innocence.
46 male students at Duke were given DNA tests in the rape case. 46. A spokesperson specifically said they don't believe all 46 were involved. So why test them all? They shouldn't have to prove their innocence.
I'm not sure where to stand on this with probable cause and such. What does everyone else think?
eta: after further reflection, turns out I do know where I stand, and I think it's wrong. There MUST be probably cause. And people who say that "I have nothing to hide, I'd take the test to prove my innocence" are merely enabling authorities to trample on their rights.
Fallibility of DNA testing
"Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States"
21 comments:
Colleges often assume guilt, it seems, whether it be an athlete allegedy engaging in bad behavior or various political brouhahas.
I can understand why many of the team members would want to take DNA tests if it will mean that the team can play again more quickly. But if the alleged activity did indeed occur, those not involved who have knowledge need to come forward. This isn't about not ratting on your teammates for, say, underage drinking. This is far more serious.
It is far more serious, but I'm not just talking about this specific case, I'm talking about DNA testing in general.
Even though you may be innocent, isn't it worth taking the test to clear up any doubt? I certainly think so. In my opinion, if you're not guilty, then it's not a big deal if you're tested. If I were in the situation, I'd rather have my name cleared.
Yay for science.
I'm on the other side. I would be really irked if someone wanted to test my DNA or search my home even if I was innocent because I see it as an inappropriate invasion of my privacy, which I guard closely. Bottom line: I don't need to prove my innocence, you need to prove my guilt. I honestly think I would adamantly refuse to participate in anything like that.
See, Theresa, Read what Carly wrote. That's what I think. It's not MY burden, it's theirs. I don't have to prove I'm innocent, they have to prove I'm guilty.
FYI, I'm not disagreeing with you in the least. But unfortunately, we know that generally people often assume guilt, even if they shouldn't. It is probably in the best interest of those who are innocent in this case to do the DNA tests, just because they can clear themselves of any controversy. They shouldn't have to, but it's the smart thing to do, given how people think.
I was just reading an ESPN.com story on this, and learned something I hadn't known: "Of the 47 members on the lacrosse team, 46 were forced to give DNA samples." I didn't realize that they were FORCED to give the samples. If it was the police who did, I think there's a good argument that they lacked probable cause. If it was the school, there might be nothing that can be done, but that doesn't make it right.
Certainly, the perpetrators of the alleged crime should be brought to justice. But that doesn't justify trampling the rights of others.
From what I heard about it on the radio yesterday morning, the university forced them to provide samples of their DNA.
If I were asked to provide a DNA sample in order to be cleared of a crime I know I didn't commit, I would provide one. I have nothing to hide.
Rachel and Theresa, but you shouldn't even be ASKED to give a DNA sample. I have nothing to hide either, but I'd still say no.
When i was in college, I was a manager of the student union. When I came in for my shift one weekend morning, i went back to open the safe and get the building keys out, the safe had been cleaned out.
The two of us who opened that morning were required to be fingerprinted "in order to eliminate our fingerprints from the safe" I am still mad at myself that I agreed to it. I shouldn't have had to do it. I didn't take the money, and there was no evidence that should have required me to be fingerprinted.
Dawnmarie, I think you are right on. One should not HAVE to provide a sample UNLESS they are a suspect based on probable cause.
If the popo had probable cause to think they may have been the perp, then ok, but a blanket teting sweep, I woould think that would be unconstitutional. Unlawful search and seizure.
In my mind, it's less about the burden of proof and more about giving the government more information about me than I want them to have. I wouldn't want my DNA or fingerprints in any government database.
Also, if these students were forced to give a sample by the school, well, I already knew I hated Duke, but now I have yet another reason.
Well, my fingerprints are on file anyway because of my former stint in the teaching world.
What a PR nightmare for Duke!
I think a few key pieces of information are missing from the story. Did the university force the lacrosse team to give samples because they wanted to bring the case to a swift close? Because they thought they were doing the right thing? Or because they were on the receiving end of pressure from the PD?
DNA testing is a blessing and a curse. While it does let us solve crimes more quickly, it also becomes a crutch that can be leaned on, instead of using good old-fashioned detective work. The police should have narrowed the field first, then asked the university to force the DNA testing.
Like many of your readers, DawnMarie, I believe in the fundamental right of being innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately in this current society, guilt is assumed. At the same time, I believe strongly in a woman's right to closure in a rape case. So I'm really torn on this issue. Which civil liberty becomes more important at this point: The right of the victim, or the right of the alleged perpetrator?
The victim has a right to swift clusere, surely. But by facilitating that by treading on the rights of innocents?
I think there was absolutely no reason to test all 46 players. None whatsoever. Swift closure or not, pressure from PD or not, there was no reason to blanket test everyone.
If the university is testing students at the behest of the cops, there's an argument to be made that it is acting as an agent of the state, and that it thus requires probable cause to conduct such testing, just like the police would.
I'd like to know if the victim was fighting back. Could there be any marks on the aggressors like scratches or bruises? Something that might make it more probable that certain players are the culprits. I would find it interesting to know if the students could be compelled to give a DNA sample but not to reveal themselves to demonstrate physical damage from the attack.
My stance is: once they have a reason to believe that it was possibly you (strong motive, lack of alibi, something that's not just a wild "well, since it could be anyone, it could be you"), then I think the DNA should be allowed as a final proof. But it shouldn't be the first step. Pretty much I'd go for the DNA test if they were planning on bringing me to trial anyway--which means they had enough evidence that they thought they could prove it.
About the fingerprints, they weren't suspecting you at all. But since you had touched the safe, they did need to know which of the sets of fingerprints were not supposed to be there. Unless you hadn't touched the safe at all, in which case you could refuse.
partially off topic:
Dawn - did they ever find out who took the money from the safe? I can't remember now.
(I really don't have a stance on this topic - so can't really add anything of value)
no, they never found out who it was. I thought, and still do, that it was MO. because Mo and I had closed a few nights before that and he didn nothing but bitch about how he wished he didn't have to work in the union, and he had been complaining to Jenni (etc shop manager?) about the job too.
This is DUKE University. It is almost like this crime happening at Oxford.
They are really trying to keep this on the low.....I agree with U, when she said, only 3guys, why do it to the whole team? Crazy! May be the police know who, but trying to hide from the public, or hide their privacy. I think the University wanted to do so....
As a man, I never get what the hearts and minds of these guys who do sh*t like this....Even if the rape didn't take place, her being being strippers' didn't give anyone carte blanche to force themselves onto those women. It's a legal profession, whether anyone approves of it or not.
I agree with U on the DNA testing.
....plus taking the test never hurts....
Post a Comment