shio said:
What you said is racist. So white men can't be wrongfully convicted? It doesn't matter if this happened 30 years ago, because what would set him free would be a DNA test, and that has been available since the 80's. You can't blame racism for him being locked up 30 years. Blame the american judicial system, which made him serve 30 years for just rape and robbery (truly excessive), and for taking so long to give him a DNA test. Let me ask you this, why wouldn't you just say "men" instead of "black men"? |
You're the second person to try to make my statement racist. You're wrong on a few points.
1. You said DNA would have set him free in the 1980's. DNA evidence wasn't nearly as developed or used as much as it is today. And you ignored the fact this happened in 1979.
(From HowStuffWorks.com) The techniques that make it possible to identify a suspect using his or her unique genetic blueprint have only been around since 1985. That's when Alec Jeffreys and his colleagues in England first demonstrated the use of DNA in a criminal investigation. Since then, DNA evidence has played a bigger and bigger role in many nations' criminal justice systems.
2. I never said white men can't be convicted. Don't try to put words into my mouth. The chance of a black men being thrown into jail on false or bad evidence compared to white men was much higher in that time. That's a common sense issue.
3.You saying his race had nothing to do with him being locked up for 30 years is just a dumb statement. I won't even bother responding to that point.
4. I said black men because the guy was obviously black.
