Comments on: Justice Demands A Change In DNA Evidence Law

By: usersuz

usersuz — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:31:20 +0000

Having police be the custodians of physical evidence is a difficult proposition; too often they perceive themselves to be on the side of the prosecution. The further along in the system the case against someone proceeds, the stronger those feelings become, until post-trial/appellate stage, they are convinced guilt has been established. We know that a person is innocent until proven guilty and that is why the prosecution has the burden of proof, but what about a person who has (wrongly) been proven guilty? Who carries the burden of proof then? The DA (and apparently the police) seem to believe the burden shifts to the Defendant. Which is one really good reason to establish an independent entity to properly catalog and warehouse that stuff. Cops have enough to do anyway. But what are we going to do with those poor b——s whose evidence has been destroyed?

By: Grace Todd

Grace Todd — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:47:28 +0000

You should be writing the editorials for The Denver Post.

By: eprob

eprob — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:06:27 +0000

I used to believe in the death penalty but not any more. There is too much chance of a miscarrage of justice particularly if evidence is being destroyed. We need a law to require that evidence be kept until everyone involved is dead but hopefully not evecuted.

By: Wildflower

Wildflower — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:24:47 +0000

I am sick of reading about dangerous people who go free when they shouldn’t, but it is also frightening to realize that an innocent prson can be incarcerated. Usersuz’s suggestion of a an independent entity to catalog and warehouse is an excellent idea.This neutral agency could bring the evidence to court without either party getting their hands on it. They could have access to micro film info before court and even view the actual evidence with supervision, but it couldn’t leave the facility.