Talk:Innocence Project: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>K kay shearin
(i'm missing your point)
Line 12: Line 12:


I have to express some skepticism of the article's claim that the persons were "proved, by DNA testing, innocent of the crimes."  We're they exonerated?  That is much easier to do than to "prove innocence." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:57, 28 June 2007 (CDT)  P.S. at the risk of making a liar of myself in my recent [https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-June/000994.html Toward CZ 2.0,] I wanted to clarify that I am attempting to write here as a rank-and-file author, not as editor-in-chief.  Feel free to overrule me, editors. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
I have to express some skepticism of the article's claim that the persons were "proved, by DNA testing, innocent of the crimes."  We're they exonerated?  That is much easier to do than to "prove innocence." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:57, 28 June 2007 (CDT)  P.S. at the risk of making a liar of myself in my recent [https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2007-June/000994.html Toward CZ 2.0,] I wanted to clarify that I am attempting to write here as a rank-and-file author, not as editor-in-chief.  Feel free to overrule me, editors. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
I don't understand the distinction you seem to be making between "proving innocent" and "exonerating":  To "exonerate" someone who has been convicted of committing a crime means to get their conviction invalidated/reversed/undone/nonexistent by proving they did not commit the crime.  To do it with DNA. you have to prove, conclusively, that the DNA of the person who did commit the crime is different from the DNA of the person convicted of committing it.  And if you thus prove someone else did it, you have proved the convicted person did not do it, and that's what "innocent" means.  So what am I missing in your posting? -- [[User:K kay shearin|k. kay]] 01:55, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 01:55, 14 July 2007


Article Checklist for "Innocence Project"
Workgroup category or categories Law Workgroup, Topic Informant Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Stub: no more than a few sentences
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Petréa Mitchell 10:25, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





I have to express some skepticism of the article's claim that the persons were "proved, by DNA testing, innocent of the crimes." We're they exonerated? That is much easier to do than to "prove innocence." --Larry Sanger 23:57, 28 June 2007 (CDT) P.S. at the risk of making a liar of myself in my recent Toward CZ 2.0, I wanted to clarify that I am attempting to write here as a rank-and-file author, not as editor-in-chief. Feel free to overrule me, editors. --Larry Sanger 23:59, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand the distinction you seem to be making between "proving innocent" and "exonerating": To "exonerate" someone who has been convicted of committing a crime means to get their conviction invalidated/reversed/undone/nonexistent by proving they did not commit the crime. To do it with DNA. you have to prove, conclusively, that the DNA of the person who did commit the crime is different from the DNA of the person convicted of committing it. And if you thus prove someone else did it, you have proved the convicted person did not do it, and that's what "innocent" means. So what am I missing in your posting? -- k. kay 01:55, 14 July 2007 (CDT)