Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-13-2005, 12:38 PM   #41
Golden Master
 
mark thorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,366
Send a message via MSN to mark thorpe Send a message via Yahoo to mark thorpe
Default Re: Death Penalty

first off... jacko is a pedo.. and deserves to be locked up...


also, i agree with gain about the DNA testing, no its not 100%, but its a close as its possible to get... beyond reasonable doubt ive heard it refered to before... DNA testing is the most accurate testing that there is to distinguish between crinimals...
__________________

__________________
'I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.'

Winston Churchill, 11/30/1874 - 01/24/1965
mark thorpe is offline  
Old 05-13-2005, 03:45 PM   #42
Fully Optimized
 
money_man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,353
Send a message via MSN to money_man
Default Re: Death Penalty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
This is the false CSI effect that influences people who watch too much hollywood. Your statement is false because you fail to look at other evidence. Warrants for arrest are done on the presumption that the police have adequately proven circumstances, and if that is backed up by fingerprints or DNA then that is great. You are again not thinking about the other evidence that is provided. DNA is just a mere supplement. You need to rethink your logic. I hope you never get on a jury.

If the prosecution puts on a weak case then there is an acquittal.

DNA evidence by the way is close to 99.9% accurate and even my chemistry professor who has a PhD backing him can say this. He has worked in the field by developing mass spectrometers. People who dispute DNA evidence are ignorant at best. That's like disputing fingerprint evidence. Fingerprints are unique, as is the portion of the DNA they test.

It is not looks. What they test is basically junk DNA. It is totally unique from person to person. In fact it is so uncommon for someone to have the same, it makes it very practical to be used as a test.

thank you for telling me about other evidence but we're talking about DNA and not finger prints and such. BTW roots thanks for backing me up. yes im not saying i dont trust DNA infact if someone is caught by DNA i assume them guilty because it is so accurate but what im saying is its not 100%
__________________

__________________
AMD 3000+ @ 2.25
Corsair Twinx 1024mb 2x512mb XMS
MSI 6600GT's SLIed @ 565/1100
Neo 4 Platinum SLI Mobo
3dmark03- 15,542
3dmark05- 7081
money_man is offline  
Old 05-13-2005, 04:56 PM   #43
BSOD
 
Syn7ax 3rror's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 461
Send a message via AIM to Syn7ax 3rror Send a message via MSN to Syn7ax 3rror
Default Re: Death Penalty

When we testify about DNA, we have to answer
questions that lawyers ask regarding a DNA match and then the judge
ultimately decides whether to allow the testimony or not. Most judges and
courts have allowed experts to testify regarding a DNA match based on it's
widespread acceptance in the scientific community. This is probably the
single most importnat factor. The belief that DNA is the genetic material
that passes on our traits to our children is not disputed. Neither is the
fact that no two people share the same DNA except identical twins. But
humans, for the most part, share common genes that make us human, 2 arms,
2 legs, 1 head, etc. Forensic scientists examine only a small portion of
the entire DNA of a cell (the genome). And this small portion of the
genome is highly polymorphic (many forms)and the randomness of inheritance
of each of these "pieces" makes a DNA profile of a person unique.

DNA is terrific to use in forensics because it is stable (for years if
kept dry), highly polymorphic, the same in all the cells of our body,
never changes, and can be obtained from the smallest amounts of material.
Defense attorneys like DNA because the results are conclusive in
elimination cases; a scientist can say with absolute certainty that a
stain did NOT come from someone. In fact, the very first use of DNA in a
criminal case in the world showed that the DNA could not have come from
the person who confessed to the crime. The police subsequently found out
who committed the crime.

A DNA match is a little more difficult to explain. At each genetic "site"
a person inherits a factor from the mother and one from the father. The
occurrence of this "type" may be 1 in 10. If the frequency of occurrence
is 1 in 10 at the next site, then the chance of having this profile at
both sites is 1 in 100, and so on. We look at 13 loci and in my simple
example, the frequency of occurence would be 1 in 10,000,000,000,000.
This number is larger than the population of the earth and so one would
think that this is identity.


But the accuracy of the test still depends on the scientists doing their
job correctly. Mistakes can happen but we take safeguards in all that we
do to ensure 100% accuracy.
Syn7ax 3rror is offline  
Old 05-13-2005, 07:02 PM   #44
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Death Penalty

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
first off DNA testing is not 100%...
100% would mean that it is indisputable, nobody else in the world would have a matching gene, (you said in your own post that the chance of a false positive is something like 1 in 5000 or 1 in 10,000.

perhaps you need a better definition of 100% accurate, I'm not sure I can provide on, certinaly 1 in 5000 is not 100%
This is what hollywood does.... You demand 1 in 6 billion, yet you cannot get that. Also it depends on how many strains you test. It gets more expensive. In the real world, if they really had to they could go with more definitive tests. But in a case with three possible suspects who were seen in the area, only the basic 6 strain test is required. The CSI effect has hit you too as you demand something impossible from a supplementary piece of evidence. You have to look at other evidence. I never said DNA evidence is 100% accurate. I'm just saying it is supplementary evidence to circumstancial evidence. DNA evidence is however the most accurate out there.

Quote:
Genes run in families so there is a good chance that you will have some matching DNA as say your brother or father or mother /kids etc. even quite distant relative can have a simillar or even exact part of a DNA sequence.
Not at all. If you look at junk DNA they test the specific strains that you would have. There are key indicators showing differences in both the DNA of you and family. You are going again with the ridiculous hollywood effect that makes me angry. You have to look at what is actually tested. They test the DNA that varies big time between person to person, called junk DNA. This DNA is not used but exists. It varies greatly even amongst family members. If they noticed that there was a half match, then it would be a relative. A half match indicates that isn't the person's DNA in question, but a family members and they could go on testing other family members.

Quote:
If you've ever seen a DNA test you'll realise that the test could not possibly differentiate between all the diferent people on earth, there siply isn't the resolution in the test equipment to find enough difference to accuratly identify everyone on earth.
You have to look at circumstances and other evidence... again not following what you see on CSI or some other show. Remember that is hollywood, not real life. Also remember there is a huge backlog in labs today. They have to use practical tests. Sometimes testing 6 strains (1 in 5,000 people) is practical because there are only 4 or 5 suspects. You should consider taking a real CSI course that filters out a lot of the B.S. I'm taking one myself this semester. It has helped me differentiate between the real world and the hollywood CSI effect.

Quote:
fingerprints are also not entierly uniquie, certinaly not in the way they are detected, physically there is a very finite amount of fingerprint patterns that there can be, (thats why they take all 8 fingers and both thumbs -to reduce the possibility of a flase positive), I was once told it is a statistical certainty that you will share the same finger print pattern with at least 4 other people, (though not all finger prints! -though the chance does exist). again the possibilities are still there, so should peole die when there may be some doubt?
Fingerprints are most certainly unique (again where you get the idea they aren't is beyond me). In fact they are so unique very small differences can be detected by a computer system. Again you need to take a course. I strongly recommend it. Even a fingerprint they take when you are 6 months old can be matched with a fingerprint they take from when you are 30 years old. It is called fingerprint collecting at a young age which is put in a database. Why do they do this for young kids? If there is a case of kidnapping and the child turns up years later their fingerprints can be tested and compared. I believe there is at least 10 points you can test in a fingerprint. Again, no I think you are wrong and basically not thinking beyond the hollywood effect.

Quote:
Lastly, since you are not on the jury, (and thank god for that since you've already made up your mind) who are you to say whether Micheal Jackson is innocent or guilty? -I don't want to turn this into a dispute about a legal case.
But there is evidence both for an against, a lot of the evidence against him has been discredited and the testemonies of people have been cast into disrepute. The kid who started it all stood in court and said he'd never tried to sell his story...
until tapes were played of him contacting Jay leno trying to sell his story.
I never said whether Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty in this case. I haven't been in the courtroom and haven't processed all the evidence. I would look how it fits and everything. You however fall into the hollywood trap. You need to think beyond the narrow mindset you have. I'm not insulting you. I'm just saying it is common that people these days want 1 in 6 billion DNA tests that don't exist and want something as easy as hollywood CSI. Listen up, the real world isn't like what you want it to be. There is a lot of evidence against him that is valid and is credible. Again don't lie (it is slammed into my face everyday by the Los Angeles media/news stations).

Quote:
The death penalty is only used in very high profile cases, and that is quite possibly the problem, in a high profile case, a lot of the time, there are people with twisted ambitions, people who feel they can get something out of it, or sell their story, and this quite a lot of the time, (as in the previous example) distorts what people say, they stand up in court, swear to tell the truth and then lie for their own gains.
This is nonsense. Why? Because juries these days look at all the evidence presented to them and have the option to gave out the death penalty. They can also give life without parole or just life. You are acting ridiculous.

Again the death penalty is very fair form of punishment. The death penalty must stand for the interests of justice.

Quote:
If the death penalty were allowed it could be a case of some poor person (who is innocent) dies so that someone else can make a few thousand pounds/dollars selling their story.

Do you really think that is right?
You again are using logical fallacies and emotional attacks! You think it is right to let someone go with a life without parole, while this person have committed multiple murders?

YOU THINK THIS RIGHT??!??!!?!??!?!?!?!??

If you were in charge of justice, there would be so many miscarriages and first degree murderers would go into house arrest. We must maintain the right, the just death penalty which will continue to exist in the US. Even in many nations in Europe it has great support.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 05:26 AM   #45
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,006
Default Re: Death Penalty

I'll addresthe last part of the statement first.

take a look at http://michaeljacksonstrial.blogspot...l_archive.html
(found that link by googling, "michael jackson trial gavin jay leno testimony lie")
I know this is compiled and not an original source but you'll find that the testemony of both Gavin and Star Arvizo is a little hard to substantiate, and onstantly seems to change, hardly enough evidence to convict a guy,
and to come back to the poin of the thread, hardly enough evidence to put a guy to death.

As it happens on this pont I am playing devils advocate, I believe Jackson is probably guilty, but thats more of a preconception rather than an opinion based on reading news and reports.

Debatnig the death penalty is an emotional argument. how is "logical fallacies and emotional attacks" then wrong for the argument? 've not sen any real logic, from the pro death penalty side, I mean you've said it's right, you've said you believe evidence used in coutr cases is so water tight that it is impossible to have a wrong conviction (even though this does hapen a lot!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackass who doesn't seem to actually erad, or at least desn't understand other peoples posts
You think it is right to let someone go with a life without parole, while this person have committed multiple murders?
No I said quite clearly in my first post that in the case of a water tight case, with confessions and everything I thought it was better to put someone to death and get them out of the way that it was to incacerate them and have the taxes that should be providing for schools and hosipitals instead going to murders and rapist, who (as I said in my first post) are given luxuries that many can't afford.


Back to my original points.
"fingerprints are also not entierly uniquie, certinaly not in the way they are detected" You say finger print matches can be detected by computer, but surely even you must realise that the resolution of the devices used to measure finger prints are not entierly accurate, the process is that first a messy ink sample is taken from your finger print, then it is scanned and digitised.
Do you now what quantisation is?
My point s this... look at your finger prints, you'll see the ridges are roughy 1/5th of a millimeter wide. so a reasonable (acceptable) resolution to assume is 1/10th of a milimeter in scanning devices.
I look a my finger and say it's probably about 2cm x 1cm
so the grid in question is only 100 x 200 pixels (20,000 pixels) since (once inked finger prints are either black or white we can look at this from a point of view as there are only a limited amount of combinations,
Think of it like counting base 2. there are only 400,000,000, (four hundred million).
(i'll provide some simplifie pictures to help illustrate this. On the pictures assume a black square is a ridge a white squaer is a trough)


A more realistic example would be (you can see how that relates more to a finger print)

But in the four hundred million a lot of those are not, and in all likely ness wil not be fingerprints.
for example

1 of the prints would be totally blank, (e.g suspect has no finger print)
20,000 of the prints will have one raised area measuing 1/10th of a millimeter square, (and since I already pointed out that the ridges are 1/5th of a millimeter wide that leaves them improbably / impossible.
Tere are anonther few hundred tousnad that are statistically improbably, (only two or three single pixel raised areas)
there is one certain impossibility of every area raised (although this woul look exactly the same as ever area being a lowered)
there is a statical improbably checker board print.
this is also the statistically improbably straight horizontal/ vertical lines in various think nesses)

So you see once you've taken all the improbably and unlikely possibilities there only a very finite possibility of prints that can be resolved and matched on a computer system.

ou also have to tae into account erros taking finger prints and any errors lifting finger prints.

Also the finger print from most crime scenes, (unless lifted from a perfcet surface) will most likely be only a partial print.

Does that help you now I've explained the point? it's not that I dispute finger prints are unique to individuals, what I dispute is that the tequniques and technologies used to take measure and match finger prints are not, (IMHO) a good reason to put someone to death. In fact it's not just me who feels like it...

american court rooms have taken the same stance previously.
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/ma...giannelli.html[/url] (found that link by gogling "Fingerprints, unique misconception")

Unfortunatly DNA testing falls into the same trap. the result slides taken are a row of boxes containing colours, assuming the colours match in the right place it is assumed to be a positive identitiy, Again there is a certain amount of error that can be introduced the belie the definite test results.
However I do agree that with the results of 6 people in one given crime scene it is unlikely, if not impossible to obtain a false positive.

The argument I'm making is quite firmly based in probablility statstics maths and sciece. Real science not hollywood sciece.

Just for the record, I don't watch CSI, I don't actually spend that much time watching TV, and of the time I do spend watching TV I like to watch good TV shows.

So as someone who has never seen CSI I'm clearly no blinded by it. Perhaps you shuold take a course in statstical probablilities. Open your eyes and actually look at and question your surroundings.
root is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 06:02 AM   #46
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Death Penalty

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
and to come back to the poin of the thread, hardly enough evidence to put a guy to death.
WAIT! I advocate putting Jackson to death? No, no, no... I think he should have medical treatment for his sickness and orders should be issued so he doesn't get near kids. Jail time... well he wouldn't last in a jail. He'd get murdered like that one priest.

Quote:
Debatnig the death penalty is an emotional argument. how is "logical fallacies and emotional attacks" then wrong for the argument? 've not sen any real logic, from the pro death penalty side, I mean you've said it's right, you've said you believe evidence used in coutr cases is so water tight that it is impossible to have a wrong conviction (even though this does hapen a lot!).
Your argument is emotional and very subjective. That's all I'm saying. I've presented logic from my side. You have not. You lose that simple. Your opinion is impacted by the hollywood CSI effect. You aren't using the intelligence I think you have. You are a very smart person, but please understand not everything you see on TV is true.

I believe in evidence that is presented well. I've seen in many court cases where the prosecutor has royally screwed up, like the Robert Blake case. I've seen however cases that were air tight like that of Scott Peterson who received the death penalty.

Quote:
No I said quite clearly in my first post that in the case of a water tight case, with confessions and everything I thought it was better to put someone to death and get them out of the way that it was to incacerate them and have the taxes that should be providing for schools and hosipitals instead going to murders and rapist, who (as I said in my first post) are given luxuries that many can't afford.
I feel the same way if you actually understand my views. I am for the death penalty in cases of first degree murder, when the case is air tight. I'm for life without parole. I don't believe in a parole system for murderers however.

Quote:
"fingerprints are also not entierly uniquie, certinaly not in the way they are detected" You say finger print matches can be detected by computer, but surely even you must realise that the resolution of the devices used to measure finger prints are not entierly accurate, the process is that first a messy ink sample is taken from your finger print, then it is scanned and digitised.
There are several different points in a fingerprint that a computer picks up. There is a system used by law enforcement in the United States by the US. The resolution of these devices is very accurate. However the results are looked at by technicians who do second checks on the results. These people are trained in their field. You need to understand you can be wrong and in this field you are. You must understanding I'm seriously considering going into law enforcement (FBI) rather then politics.

Quote:
Do you now what quantisation is?
My point s this... look at your finger prints, you'll see the ridges are roughy 1/5th of a millimeter wide. so a reasonable (acceptable) resolution to assume is 1/10th of a milimeter in scanning devices.
I look a my finger and say it's probably about 2cm x 1cm
so the grid in question is only 100 x 200 pixels (20,000 pixels) since (once inked finger prints are either black or white we can look at this from a point of view as there are only a limited amount of combinations,
Think of it like counting base 2. there are only 400,000,000, (four hundred million).
(i'll provide some simplifie pictures to help illustrate this. On the pictures assume a black square is a ridge a white squaer is a trough)
This is total bogus. Let me explain why.. ridges vary extremely between person to person. You are making up stuff by using some ridiculous math that has nothing to do with this. Ridges on the fingerprints, and the data points where the ridges are measured vary totally. In fact it varies so much that fingerprints are completely unique between each person. Since AFIS uses a much better resolution then you specify you must realize why your views are totally off base. You need to admit you are wrong every now and then. They can get prints from 30 years ago and match them (using certain lift methods).

http://www.east-shore.com/cjeng.html - AFIS.

Quote:
1 of the prints would be totally blank, (e.g suspect has no finger print)
20,000 of the prints will have one raised area measuing 1/10th of a millimeter square, (and since I already pointed out that the ridges are 1/5th of a millimeter wide that leaves them improbably / impossible.
Tere are anonther few hundred tousnad that are statistically improbably, (only two or three single pixel raised areas)
there is one certain impossibility of every area raised (although this woul look exactly the same as ever area being a lowered)
there is a statical improbably checker board print.
this is also the statistically improbably straight horizontal/ vertical lines in various think nesses)
More ridiculous errors (when the suspect has no fingerprint he has to take extremely painful measures in removing it). First off you are going off tangants and you should read more about AFIS before you make these ridiculous statements. Where are you getting this nonsense from anyways? Where is your back-up? And why are you so sucked into that hollywood CSI effect I keep bringing up? You ask my chemistry professor who has a PhD... and he would criticize you non-stop. You are acting unrealistically and you must understand that you should grasp other evidence. DNA and fingerprinting is merely supplementary to circumstancial evidence.

Quote:
So you see once you've taken all the improbably and unlikely possibilities there only a very finite possibility of prints that can be resolved and matched on a computer system.
More logical fallacies on the part of root... and fix up your typos. It does not look very good. I admit one or two typos isn't bad (especially for me as I'm making this post at 3AM), but... too many... looks very bad. Also it depends on the number of points you match. And on AFIS, fingerprints can only be matched if the suspect is already registered. Typically in court cases, they can compare finger prints with the apprehended suspect. There have been attempts to make everybody in the US have their fingerprints taken but as a libertarian I am against such measures as it would be invasive to privacy.

Quote:
ou also have to tae into account erros taking finger prints and any errors lifting finger prints.
Which are next to nothing if the agent knows what he is doing. There is glue fuming that all agents are required to do on the scene. Glue fuming if done on finger prints that are just a few hours old has a 0% error rate. There are other more intensive measures that would lift prints that are years old (or even 20-30 years old).

Quote:
Also the finger print from most crime scenes, (unless lifted from a perfcet surface) will most likely be only a partial print.
Nonetheless still can be tested, and be conclusively used as evidence against a particular suspect.

Quote:
Does that help you now I've explained the point? it's not that I dispute finger prints are unique to individuals, what I dispute is that the tequniques and technologies used to take measure and match finger prints are not, (IMHO) a good reason to put someone to death. In fact it's not just me who feels like it...
You haven't explained anything. In fact you fell deeper into that same hole of the same. I'm angry that you think you know everything in this field when it appears you haven't even taken a course in this. I already specified what they use and you haven't even bothered. I explained what they do when matching prints, and you haven't even bothered. You brought up all these bogus numbers that seem convenient to you (unfortunately for you, fingerprints vary between each individual). You need to understand you are wrong on this matter. You also must understand you are misstating my views. I never said execute someone based solely on DNA and fingerprint evidence along. Of course not. A case must be compiled and the person must be placed the scene. If a suspect's allibi cannot hold, and if the evidence points to the person, the person is most likely guilty. DNA evidence for example is extremely accurate and is more then a good reason to put a first degree murderer to death.

Quote:
american court rooms have taken the same stance previously.
http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/ma...giannelli.html[/url] (found that link by gogling "Fingerprints, unique misconception")
Unfortunately for you again, American court rooms have not disqualified fingerprint evidence as it is accurate enough. American courts always allow it and the same thing goes for DNA evidence. I don't feel you have a case.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 06:03 AM   #47
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Death Penalty

Quote:
Unfortunatly DNA testing falls into the same trap. the result slides taken are a row of boxes containing colours, assuming the colours match in the right place it is assumed to be a positive identitiy, Again there is a certain amount of error that can be introduced the belie the definite test results.
However I do agree that with the results of 6 people in one given crime scene it is unlikely, if not impossible to obtain a false positive.
I'm sorry. But this is ridiculous. Do you even know what you are talking about? At all? Or are you watching CSI again? Please understand hollywood is not the real world. DNA testing DOES NOT FALL INTO THE SAME TRAP. It is totally accurate and there is no certain amount of error. AGAIN LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE IN A CASE! THAT INCLUDES CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE!

Quote:
The argument I'm making is quite firmly based in probablility statstics maths and sciece. Real science not hollywood sciece.
The arguments you have made are not firmly based in probability statistics or math or sciece (SIC). You are using hollywood sciece (SIC). Science is what I'm using.

Quote:
So as someone who has never seen CSI I'm clearly no blinded by it. Perhaps you shuold take a course in statstical probablilities. Open your eyes and actually look at and question your surroundings.
You open your eyes and look at your surroundings. Stop being so ignorant. And work on your horrific spelling.

"jackass who doesn't seem to actually erad, or at least desn't understand other peoples posts"

And for that one I'm reporting you. You have no right to go around name calling other people, especially when they may overpower you in an argument. Like in some arguments, I'll concede. But not this one.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 06:14 AM   #48
Wizard of Wires
 
setishock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Not sure
Posts: 10,030
Default Re: Death Penalty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techy Geek
What do you think, is the death penalty good or bad, Im doing this for school so post sensibly, no flaming, I think there was a thread like this but I dont care. Please give the country in which you live and reasons for your opinion . I am for it as i belive that with DNA testing there are unlikely to be miscarraiges of justice.

Seeing as this was a school project and a question to gather information, I think I need to pose this question to you.

HAVE YOU GOT YOUR DATA?
setishock is offline  
Old 05-14-2005, 06:24 AM   #49
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Death Penalty

Setis, i don't think root was in his right by calling me a jackass.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0