Comment Re:Its good, look at what happened with OJ (Score 2, Interesting) 815
The problem is that juries now expect every police department everywhere to have access to the same resources that they see on CSI. The lab they portray is an agglomeration of every interesting technique that has been used anywhere in the world. Maybe, just maybe, the FBI has a lab like that somewhere in Washington, but that is probably it. I had the unfortunate experience of attending the trial for the person who murdered my cousin this year. This was in Austin, TX -- a fair size metropolis with a comparatively well funded police department (given the local conservatism and the fact that it is also the state capital). The prosecutor easily made the case for clear motive (a large and contentious debt to my cousin), had a videotaped and written confession, had a video reenactment performed by the accused himself at the crime scene, and had the murder weapon found in the accused's jacket in his closet. The defense attorney tore apart the homicide detectives for not having DNA tested every last bit of evidence found at the scene (understand they already had the confession and willful reenactment at this point). Thankfully we got the conviction, but there was one point when I was really worried. There was a very detailed ballistics report linking the bullet fragment to the gun. There were sketches and descriptions of every matching striation. HOWEVER, there wasn't any cool side-by-side photograph to show the jury because the department didn't have that type of microscope at the time. I think the jury felt cheated that they didn't get the visuals they get from television.
Yes, a high profile case like OJ's might get an investigation as thorough as what you see on CSI, but I don't think taxpayers are willing to spend that much on the rest of the 17000 murders per year.
It is really a paradox. Most liberals would argue that you can't put a dollar amount on what a man's life is worth, and so defendants should have every possible test completed on the evidence before being sentenced to life in prison or worse, and yet it is the conservative candidates who are most in favor of increasing police funding.
Yes, a high profile case like OJ's might get an investigation as thorough as what you see on CSI, but I don't think taxpayers are willing to spend that much on the rest of the 17000 murders per year.
It is really a paradox. Most liberals would argue that you can't put a dollar amount on what a man's life is worth, and so defendants should have every possible test completed on the evidence before being sentenced to life in prison or worse, and yet it is the conservative candidates who are most in favor of increasing police funding.
