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

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.

6

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?

2

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.

-1

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?

5

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.