Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill of Rights  Is a crime (say, robbery) worse because it was committed while the criminal happened to be armed? In and of itself, of course not. |
I disagree. And so would most people, I think. Let's take your robbery example. It's one thing to threaten to kick someone's ass if they don't hand over their wallet. (Strongarm robbery) It's quite another thing to employ a weapon and threaten to take someone's life if they don't comply. (Armed robbery) The law has long held that crimes committed with deadly weapons (of any type) are worse than other crimes, due to the sanctity of human life. Felonies are enhanced in Indiana Code when a deadly weapon is used, with harsher penalties prescribed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill of Rights That said, though, I can see some benefit and some detriment: If the rightful owner loaded his magazine before his gun was stolen and the criminal was gloved, only the rightful owner's DNA will appear, which could quickly lead to wrongful convictions. Of course there are all kinds of "what if" scenarios, but that's the first one that came to mind for me. As long as criminals aren't freed and innocents imprisoned, I don't have issue with this. |
It's not easy to get a criminal conviction in a jury trial, if all aspects are working as they should. (Judge, jury, prosecution, defense) Of course, nothing human is perfect, but I think our criminal justice system is better for the accused than most systems around the world.
The DNA collected with these kits is intended to be used to strengthen a case, and is only one element of the entire picture that is used to develop enough probable cause to charge an individual with a crime. Witness statements and other evidence, coupled with the DNA, should be used to meet the burden of proof....beyond a reasonable doubt. The owner of a handgun whose DNA is found on it is certainly not guilty of a crime just because he touched the gun. All elements must prove him guilty. If someone is falsely convicted on flimsy evidence, the prosecutor, defense AND the jury all share some blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill of Rights The question to be asked as to "everything gov't does is an attack on gun rights" is if the potential for abuse by unscrupulous officers and/or officeholders outweighs the potential benefit by those who can be trusted.
Blessings,
B |
That's the million dollar question. I think it all depends on if you see the people who work in the criminal justice system as mostly decent folks, with a few real scumbags, or mostly real scumbags, with just a few decent folks. (Now THERE'S a thread for discussion!
) I can tell you that the huge majority of the people I have worked with in LE and the courts have been good people, tasked with a difficult job. Most go their whole careers with little fanfare and do a good job, and others fail spectacularly, as we have seen in the news lately.
Being close to the issue, I see these kits as a positive thing in helping to build solid cases that remove some of the most dangerous criminals from our society.