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!).
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.
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.
[/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.