n Battalion o PINION Page 13 • Thursday, October 7, 1999 Has the grading system at Texas A&M mu i mi n mm nn ii in n n n n n mi 4 ii ii n n inn n n ii iiimi n 11 : n n n ii ii ii nn Mllll nnn nn Q GO G O O O O o o tn ])iled broa; luns, pnes from Dam; ndtyofBi dsdngh)!: J on thousi to come: uj ui yj iij us A! is in Di ?d by tf er E o cm PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY ROBERT HYNECEK/Tm R.vTTAOON MAIL CALL lAISSANQ!? tball fans battle it out Pattended the Tech-A&M game, this past 19 GMirlrttirday and witnessed Tech fans unsports- iflus Bike behavior after the game. I must )0WNW gee with Bryan Massey’s letter to The Bat- *iu n 'H that their behavior was embarrassing, link we should use their behavior as an pie of what not to do at Kyle Field n we host a team. As Aggies, we hold ourselves to a higher pidard of behavior. Accordingly, when oth- schools’ fans come to our campus, we , M ., ; should treat them with sportsmanlike REuaousBndliness, not taunting. ^^Kln Aggieland, our character is a hoj no*^t above, so let us make sure ■continue to set the example the rest of the Big 12, Ags. Matt Criswell Class of ’00 There have been mixed reac- s after the Tech and A&M )tball game, from both the Ag- ss and Raiders. Some are ud and some are ashamed ithe actions of the Red Raiders, can understand that it was in propriate for some stu nts to chant comments about e Aggies, but I also heard some of the me comments made about the Raiders by some Aggies in my section. Obviously, £^|notall Aggies are the fair and polite stu- > UBLEJEOP); i.OVEOfK ;i SO 3® f:« ' cjivEMEor dents that they claim to be. I also understand that some of the Ag- ies did not understand why we took down our own goal post. I was amazed, but proud, that our stu- muw: ] ents were so full of spirit that they cele- irated in such a way. Some Aggies may hink it is ridiculous, but of all the schools in exas, you would understand how you can at |ne point, become overwhelmed with such pride in your school. Lauren Olson Texas Tech University I would just like to take the time to say of you are very poor losers. For all of /ou to act appalled at the actions of Tech students is very wrong. Some friends of mine went down to Col lege Station for the game last year, and they were cursed at, told that they sucked and had objects thrown at them while sitting in the student section. Before you start attacking the actions of others, maybe you should look at your- At least our students do not assault eachother. I am a student at Texas Tech, and I am tired of hearing about Aggies excuses about the loss on Saturday. As far as being undig nified, I distinctly remember last season at Kyle Field when a group of Aggies threw gum and other things at me during yell call, or whatever it is called, because I was holding my guns up. Boy, that sounds like real sportsmanship conduct to me. Running out on the field is just a horrible thing. Our traditions may not be as popular as yours, but stop saying that we have none. We do have one tradition, and that is beat ing you every year. Eric Shaw Texas Tech University A&M may have a fine sports program, but in the eight years I have been in College Station, I have seen no difference between the way Aggies treat visiting fans after a home victory, in any sport, than the way we get treated when we lose on the road. The only difference is we classify our behavior as show ing school spirit, while their be havior is touted as a lack of class. Gregory Salata Class of ’99 Texas Tech and A&M have always been big rivals, and our behavior was no less dig nified then A&M’s would have been if they had won. It is amazing how righteous people become after losing a game. However, sadly I have to say that you are wrong about A&M’s “dignified” school spirit. I have personally been to football games in the past between Tech and A&M in which I was yelled at, cussed at, given the finger to and literally pushed around by A&M stu dents because of my support for Texas Tech. Next time, let me encourage you to watch your fellow students and fans, you are not as morally upright as you may think you are. In the future, if you cannot handle losing or winning gracefully, stay home. Luke Stapleton Texas Tech University also M selves. Open •IV Ian Fairchild Texas Tech University The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in per son at 013 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com special \ SERIES DNA trials and tribulations D NA technology is paving the way toward a better judicial system. However, many of the legal system’s own are resisting DNA’s impact on appellate laws.in fa vor of established convictions. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, a high-lev el study committee appointed by At torney General Janet Reno, recently recommended that convicts be al lowed to file appeals based on new DNA evidence, even after appeal deadlines have expired. This recom mendation would allow trials to be reopened, or at least revisited, in hopes that wrongfully convicted person could be exonerated. The proposal — which is not legal ly binding — has already been criti cized as naively ignorant of the on slaught of appeals sure to come if Reno uses the committee’s advice to shape Justice Department policy. Moreover, the recommendation chal lenges the finality of criminal verdicts. But these criticisms are unfounded. To be reconsidered, appeals would have to fall under a number of guide lines, which means dockets will not be unreasonably burdened. Besides, the supposition that criminal convic tions are more important than truth is paradoxical to the foundation of the judi cial system. There always is the fear that al lowing appeals will increase the possibility of an overly heavy burden on judges. But assuming that case loads would increase drastically by al lowing convicts to appeal may be an er roneous assumption. The commission advises that prosecutors allow convicts to ask for appeals but make no guarantees on the success of the appeals. The ba sis of the each appeal is still consid ered on its merits and the case’s ini tial evidence, not only the new DNA evidence. A new appeal does not LEGAL ISSUES Part 4 of 5 DNA evidence: Should courts allow genetic evidence after trials are over? guarantee an over turned conviction. The committee’s executive director, Chris Asplen, has admitted as much to “Court TV”. Ac cording to an Asso ciated Press article, he told the network that there are many cases in which the DNA evidence would have no real effect on the origi nal verdict. However, in cas es where DNA evi dence would clearly alter the initial deci sion, Asplen said “the prosecutor should not object on a statute of limi tations grounds.” Therefore, the opponents of the commission’s find ings are being reactionary. Allowing convicts to appeal — even after the appellate deadlines have expired — probably will not slow an already sluggish court system. Even if courts are some what burdened by the appeals, law en forcers should real ize that bogus convictions are more of a detri- j*| ment to justice than over whelming case loads. After all, there is no statute of limita tions on the truth. Retrying cases may feel like a bur den to district attor neys, police officers and other law enforcers, but if these officials are willing to settle for any thing less than the truth, perhaps they were not meant for legal professions. And people should remember that the presumption of innocence is one of the basic structural principles in the legal system, much in the same O RUBEN OELUNA /Tut: Battalion way that the Hippocratic Oath is fundamental to the medical profes sion. The burden of proof lies on plaintiffs to prove the guilt of defen dants, not on defendants to prove their own innocence. If new DNA weakens the prosecu tion’s arguments from the prior trial, prosecutors have not made a convinc ing case, and the convict deserves a retrial anyway. As Asplen said, “ [DNA] isn’t like an alibi witness coming out of nowhere.” DNA evidence is a reliable source, when properly collected and stored. Scientist and deputy director of the commission, Lisa Forman, said DNA is often used in cases such as rapes because of its impartiality. “The science involved is blind to the adversary system,” Forman said in The New York Times. “This is the most dispassionate type of evidence.” Those contesting the purpose of the proposal do not argue with DNAs reliability, but they obviously are dis counting the usefulness of such a tool. DNA evidence will maximize the benefits of DNA in legal proceedings, rather than uselessly hindering cases. To date, retrials triggered by DNA evidence have resulted in the release of 67 people (62 in the United States, 5 in Canada), according to the Inno cence Project, a group at the Cardozo School of Law that attempts to over turn convictions using DNA evidence. If DNA evidence has already affect ed the lives of 67 wrongly convicted people, releasing them from an unde served punishment, imagine the af fects it could have on the multitudes of prisoners across the nation. Law enforcement not obliged to using DNA evidence in appeals would be better off remembering that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to have an innocent one suffer. Convictions may look favorable to justice on the front page of a newspa per, but if they do not reflect justice, then they are of no use. It is in everyone’s best interests if prosecutors bring the guilty to justice. And with the power of DNA, justice can be served unequivocally. Beverly Mireles is a junior microbiology major.