Why conservative minorities are not republicans

[kimba1]

In the news a man was released from prison due to it was found he was falsely convicted after 12years in prison and it eas stated other prisoners are also being investigated for being falsely convicted.

I stated in other post most people by nature are conservative but only in very few issues . Being falsely convicted is one of the issues minorities differ from the primary core conservatives. This issue been brought up now due to the cost to the state .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Scalia claimed that the prisoners had no right to DNA tests than might absolve them.
Of course, the Founding Fathers said nothing about DNA, so he was technically correct.

But he was often a truly hateful and dogmatic fool.

I am glad he is gone.

[Plane]

Scalia claimed that the prisoners had no right to DNA tests than might absolve them.
Of course, the Founding Fathers said nothing about DNA, so he was technically correct.

....

This is a lot better than technically correct!

Where the law or even the constitution needs updating , perhaps because of better science or new police problems, it might be wise of Judges to point to the problem, but it is not their job to make the change.

Legislators are not excused from their work because judges are so much wiser.
The law and even the constitution are meant to be updated almost constantly, and these updates should be in the control of the people.

So legislators need to be making these changes in legislatures and in referendum, which judges should then obey, as is their function.

If instead we allow judges to make decisions contrary to law, we can dispense with having law and electing legislators, a great savings in tax money of course , but some expenses are worthwhile.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If a judge allows innocent men to be executed by denying them DNA evidence, he is being both cruel and incompetent.
Scalia was cruel and incompetent to act as he did, Alito is every bit as bad, and Thomas never says anything much.
When he writes an opinion, Thomas shows us again what a bad choice he was. He allows his wife to work as a lobbyist.That is a conflict of interest.
Anita Hill was right about Thomas. He was clearly unfit, and was very far from the best qualified.

[sirs]

Feel better now?     

[Xavier_Onassis]

Fuck yeeah!

[sirs]

Excellent.  Emotion is a trademark for the debate tactics by hardcore leftists.  Nice to know you're flourishing in the effort

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not emotional to say that a judge who wants to deny justice to a falsely accused man on death row is cruel and incompetent. Scalia and Alito are such people.

[sirs]

Falsely accused based on what evidence??  You do realize DNA is only a fairly recent revelation to the judicial system.  People have been convicted of crimes like murder, far longer than there's been DNA samples

Naa...your rant was far more consistent with the usual "debate" style, most often employed by leftists

[Plane]

    We had a case in Perry Ga in which a murder was downgraded to a manslaughter based on handwriting analysis.
     There is such a thing as junk science , if judges have too much power they can release people on the basis of phrenology or whatever.

      Governors can give clemency or pardon, as an executive action (limited in Texas)  Govenors are elected.

       Legislatures can change the law anyway that the constitution they use allows , and in extreme , they can change the constitution. Legislatures are elected.

      Some judges are elected , but not these , if their power was total we might as well give them crowns.

     Why is giving DNA tests to the convicted unpopular with the public?
      If the idea is good for the public ,Presidents , Governors and  especially legislators ought to like it too.

[Xavier_Onassis]

DNA tests that could prove a person's innocence should be a constitutional right.

DNA testing is valid science, more so than fingerprints, and certainly more reliable than eyewitness testimony from months earlier or phony "confessions" squeezed out of  teenage boys by cops who lie about how their buddies ratted them out.

[Plane]

DNA tests that could prove a person's innocence should be a constitutional right.

DNA testing is valid science, more so than fingerprints, and certainly more reliable than eyewitness testimony from months earlier or phony "confessions" squeezed out of  teenage boys by cops who lie about how their buddies ratted them out.

That is an excellent idea.

Though it might be faster to make it state or federal law first.

And it would be just about instant to make it a Justice department regulation.

Any of these ways , it would not depend on the whim of a judge.

[sirs]

A Constitutional right would require a Constitutional convention, since no such right currently exists.  By all means, knock your socks off, professor

[Plane]

  Science has run far ahead of the education of our police and governors and legislatures.

   Judges too.



    I really wanted a medical Doctor for President , perhaps next time.

    Most scientists are too busy with important things to get into government.

     I think this is the reason that DNA evidence is so confused in its application.

     There could be a justice department regulation already.

     With little more effort a federal law.
   
      It could be a state law in several states by now, but it is not.

     So why is it not?

      Is there an obstacle to it that I am not seeing?

[kimba1]

actually DNA can backfire on a defendant. It's just a process that truely does not say a person is innocent or guilty. It just prove whether a certain type of evidence belong or not to someone. I heard several request fir the test with no understanding how dna works and got stiffer sentences because of it.

I would not say it's a right but I do question why would it be denied