"City Using DNA To Skirt Statute Of Limitations For Rapes"

[jody]

QUOTE
To effectively eliminate the statute of limitations in aging cases, New York will become the first city in the nation to make rape indictments based solely on a DNA profile, before a suspect is even identified, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Monday.
UNQUOTE

Recently we found that DNA can be used from a fingerprint. Now if we can require a fingerprint with every credit card, drivers license, and SSN then, the Beast will have effectively numbered the citizens as prophesied "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Rev 13:16-17)

Note; "no man might buy or sell" so the High Priests of Mammon with AWOL in the judgment seat can plant the DNA of any political opponent at the scene of a terrorist incident, identify the purported terrorist via DNA, declare them an "enemy combatant, and send them to "nowhere land" like Jose Padilla.

Sleep sound, AWOL is guarding America. :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I fail to see how this can hold up at the Supreme Court level

It's one thing to lengthen the statute of limitations quite another to indict a DNA without a person attached to it.

I would also question the procedures of labs given all the cases where shoddy forensic work was involved.

This is political grandstanding.

[papau]

3. It has already passed review - a John Doe indictment is not a problem

No indictment and the Stat of Lim just passes - with the indictment they have a time period still - just ends a little bit later - and out of state time does not count!

[iverglas]

2. here's a question

Just something else I've always been curious about.

Why on earth would there be a "statute of limitations" on prosecuting people suspected of committing serious crimes?

The state does not have perfect and complete knowledge of everything that goes on in the world. Victims sometimes have no knowledge at all of who committed crimes against them.

The only person who knows who committed a crime is not infrequently the person who committed it.

What I simply cannot understand is why that person's successful concealment of his/her crime/identity should immunize him/her against prosection for it.

Up here, summary conviction offences (= misdemeanours) do have a limitation. Indictable offences (=felonies) most definitely do not. Once a suspect is identified and the necessary evidence assembled, a charge must be laid in reasonable time, and s/he has a right to a trial within a reasonable time (something our Supreme Court has taken rather a hard line on). But the state simply does not lose its right to prosecute and punish someone who committed a serious offence because it didn't do so at a time when it had no way of discovering who that person was or what s/he had done.

I'm at a loss to know what interest is being served by imposing such a limitation.

Just the queries of a bemused foreigner.

.

[enki23]

4. witnesses forget. alibi's become difficult.

evidence decays, figuratively and literally.

[iverglas]

5. and all of those factors

"witnesses forget. alibi's become difficult.
evidence decays, figuratively and literally."

... are not insurmountable barriers to a fair trial, if that was what your point was. Things like the rules of evidence, and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, address most of those factors quite adequately already. (Yeah, alibi might be difficult to establish. Few trials turn on alibi evidence.)

In fact, most of them would seem to operate IN FAVOUR OF an accused person at trial, not against him/her. I don't get why the state should be precluded from holding such a trial because ITS OWN evidence may be weaker than it would have been at some point in the past.

Still wondering ...

[enki23]

6. not true

it all depends on the jury. the "innocent until proven guilty" standard only matter so long as the jury gets it. there's no guarantee they do, or will.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.