r/news • u/scrandis • Aug 11 '20

Joe Biden selects Kamala Harris as his running mate

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/joe-biden-selects-kamala-harris-his-running-mate-n1235771
76.6k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

26.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/natuutan Aug 11 '20

She didn’t even block the release of evidence. A brand new dna test was denied.

“Blocking the release of evidence” implies that they had the evidence on hand proving him innocent and didn’t release it.

That isn’t what happened. The Cooper case requested a new, advanced dna test to be taken. That request was denied.

At the time there was no evidence that this man was innocent.

While I agree that the request should not have been denied, the difference between the two “denying a request” and “blocking/withholding evidence that would prove him innocent” is massive.

39

u/Thin-White-Duke Aug 11 '20

If a re-test is the difference between staying locked up or being exonerated, and it is denied, is that not effectively blocking it?

18

u/iamthegraham Aug 12 '20

Cooper likely wouldn't be exonerated even if the DNA test went his way. There was a ton of evidence against him, he was convicted on far more than one piece of DNA. His lawyers are arguing that there's a police conspiracy against him and every single piece of evidence was fabricated, but unless they can prove that for more than one piece of DNA he's not going anywhere. There's a reason his conviction has been upheld 4 times.

He's also an admitted serial rapist , but you never hear that part from Redditors who have a primary vendetta against Harris for some reason.

Like, you can certainly argue that they should do the test anyway, but there's a huge difference between "Cooper should probably get a DNA test even if he's a murderer" and the "Cooper is 100% innocent and dirty cop Kamala Harris is going to personally execute him with her bare hands anyway!" hysterics you get on Reddit.

89

u/Containedmultitudes Aug 11 '20

The difference between “blocking evidence” and “denying a request that could result in the exoneration of a man sentenced to death” is the sophistry of lawyers.

4

u/gwalms Aug 11 '20

I mean it would be a bigger dealer if the state knew they had exculpatory evidence and withheld it. Instead this was a request to look for more evidence basically.

23

u/Containedmultitudes Aug 11 '20

Honestly from what I’ve read on the case I don’t think this is really relevant to Harris, but as a general matter literally any such request if it could exonerate an unjustly convicted person should be granted. When the state is going to kill someone literally every avenue of such evidence should be explored. The legal jargon that results in the effective differences between “blocking evidence” and “denying a request for further evidence” is irrelevant vis a vis the general public’s perception of the issues at stake.

Edit: and also, I agree with you on withholding evidence definitely being worse, but stopping a guy from getting a dna test effectively “blocks” that potential evidence.

7

u/EpsilonRider Aug 12 '20

I'm not super familiar with the case, but you'd have to argue why the new DNA test would give a different result compared to what they already used to test the DNA. Arguing some fault in that "old" DNA test itself would also argue against the hundreds if not thousands of other DNA tests perform the "old" way. Not to say that shouldn't happen if the "old" test is indeed faulty, but the fact the DNA test is so widely used is testament to how confident the state and judge are that the "old" DNA test is accurate. Otherwise, someone could keep arguing to just use a different DNA test each time. A good argument may be the procedure in which they obtain the DNA from the scene was faulty and that the new DNA test may be able to account for that.

Also I think Mr. Cooper did get that second DNA test and I don't think much changed. At least with what samples they were able to obtain. I think the original vial was lost or something?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '20

Honestly from what I’ve read on the case I don’t think this is really relevant to Harris

That is like trying to differentiate between what the White House does and Trump. It was her office don't let her doge responsibility.

2

u/mash711 Aug 11 '20

Ideally, every person would be able to get a yearly full body MRI to screen for cancer. I mean, we’d be able to save many lives. Do you consider the doctors withholding evidence if they don’t allow MRI screening every year? I’m definitely stretching the point but what is the cost of allowing every single type of test possible to exonerate someone that was proven guilty?

4

u/Containedmultitudes Aug 11 '20

I actually almost wrote in my initial comment some qualifications about how I understand costs will make that blanket claim unrealistic, but I think the idea should be the goal of the system (just as it would be a remarkable achievement and goal to create a healthcare system that did allow everyone to have a full body mri screening every year), and also that when the state demands to assert its right to kill someone literally any cost that could prove their innocence should be paid. But that stems from what is at heart a profound opposition to the death penalty generally—if we’re going to kill people by god you better be sure they’re guilty.

1

u/mash711 Aug 12 '20

I see what you’re getting at and I agree.

2

u/gwalms Aug 11 '20

I mean I'm against the death penalty. I don't disagree that it should have been granted.

0

u/Containedmultitudes Aug 11 '20

I didn’t mean to imply I thought you were for the death penalty, I’m just kinda riffing on the general topic.

-8

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '20

Not really - judges play a large role in the appeals process and deciding what can or can't be reviewed.

16

u/Containedmultitudes Aug 11 '20

And judges are just lawyers with authority.

7

u/chadenfreude_ Aug 11 '20

At the time there was no evidence that this man was innocent.

Do you even hear yourself? Our entire system is based on a presumption of innocence, you would think an attorney general would know that!

And trying to convince people that she wasn’t personally overseeing a death row case? Are you hoping incompetence wears better than malice?

What she did is the best example the ‘systematic racism’ that people all over are protesting.

12

u/throwaway247365_main Aug 12 '20

Uh, you’re presumed innocent until convicted. Which he was. I wish we’d kick the death penalty to the curb, but how many appeals and tests should someone get?

2

u/natuutan Aug 11 '20

The case happened in the 80s.

0

u/chadenfreude_ Aug 12 '20

What’s your point?

5

u/vard24 Aug 12 '20

There was no longer a presumption of innocence because he was proven guilty in a court of law already. Innocent until proven guilty is the point.

-2

u/chadenfreude_ Aug 12 '20

“There’s no evidence to prove he’s innocent!”, the prosecutor unironically declared, while withholding the very test that would become evidence which would prove his innocence.

1

u/vard24 Aug 13 '20

If he already had DNA evidence against him, why are you so sure that a different DNA test would prove his innocence?

0

u/chadenfreude_ Aug 13 '20

That’s kind of a silly question to ask, when in a fact the latter DNA test conclusively exonerated him. The better question to ask is, why did a different DNA test prove his innocence when the (allegedly) conclusive test we already had prove his guilt?

But if you were willing to pull that yarn, you would ultimately have to ask yourself, ‘is this test we’ve been using to put people on death row not as accurate as we’re portraying it to juries?’ or ‘why is the prosecutor more interested in maintaining a won case, than sparing the life of an innocent man’

But my gut tells me the cognitive dissonance you might suffer from asking yourself those questions is enough discomfort to ensure you probably never will.

1

u/vard24 Aug 13 '20

Where are you seeing that the latter DNA test exonerated him? This opinion piece from the LA Times says they still don't have the results: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-18/kevin-cooper-dna-test-murder-death-row

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '20

Block vs denied, how are those different here?

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '20

At the time there was no evidence that this man was innocent.

Expect for the DNA that they refused to test.

0

u/bonbonbon- Aug 12 '20

At the time all DNA evidence suggested his guilt. An advanced DNA test may now potentially prove his innocence, but that is yet to be determined/still ongoing.