Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 27, 2000)
Tuesday. June 27,21 Tuesday, June 27,2000 THE BATTALION Page 5 The Great Escape on a concentration-cart; prisoners, and numeroc ?r (Sawalha) givethecafj free from the shackles# er grass of their dream ad fowl are continual ng Mr. Tweedy and ipes, particularly the® c prison-break filmssui scape, right down to In used railways, t its spoofs, but its met eme because the chid® eggs to suffice the er Irs. Tweedy turns theeg arters by purchasing 4 mber. dys is the chickens' all nst time before they ms x>d chicken pies, tooster (Gibson) flies h r the gullible hens how -ibson plays his role ast' ? the dapper English he ia play the lead - roles,t >w as the slapstick com oges"-Style antics playi h-out-loud classic, ingenious storylines Tain audiences of With New DNA testing technology, should convicted criminals be given ONE MORE CHANCE? I magine a society where justice is never final and convicted criminals get unlimited chances to prove their innocence. Cops be come more desperate to ensure convictions, people become more paranoid, and justice is always sec ond-guessed. With a new piece of legislation proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch to the Senate Judiciary Committee, all this might soon become a reality. The proposed legislation would allow DNA testing to prove a convicted criminal's in nocence. Yes, a convicted criminal, one who has al ready been found guilty, could be given another trial. Congress now wants to extend justice and allow criminals yet another chance to be set free at the expense of taxpay ers. While DNA testing should be incorporated into current trials, it is unnecessary to go back and test previously con victed criminals. Nuclear DNA test ing has been used by the FBI in criminal trials Faith in legal system, past convictions should dispel fears of wrongful convictions. (since 1988, but recently the FBI has introduced the use of mitochondrial DNA, which is located outside the cell's nucleus and can be extracted from poorly-pre- I served fragments of evidence such as hair, blood, skin lor semen. Nuclear DNA is more accurate, but harder 1 to keep in its pure state when removed from a crime I scene, resulting in tainted samples. A perfect example is the O.J. Simpson trial, where the nuclear DNA sample was not pure enough to sub- ; stantiate a conviction. On the other hand, mitochondr- ; ial DNA does not provide as unique a fingerprint be- j cause it is inherited only from the mother, which means many relatives could share the same mitochon drial DNA sequence, but it does not taint as easily as nuclear DNA. Because DNA is found in all parts of the human body, it is easy to obtain DNA and determine some one's presence at a crime. But, as lawyers argue, being present at the scene of a crime does not prove guilt or involvement beyond a "shadow of a doubt" which is | required for a conviction. The presence of DNA parti- Mustang, a gang o ri ;ij c [ esonor arounc i a victim proves only that those two re found underneathapif , . , , . ,, . . . , , 1 humans had contact, not that one assaulted or mur- n belts are mixed togeW I ... . . r , dered the other. While DNA samples can prove some- ■ and a disappointingb r i one was at a crime scene, eyewitness testimony would questionable plot. EvS 1 sti11 be the most crucial P iece of evidence identifying eturns to a life bf crimsi _ Furthermore, DNA is the most scientifically ad vanced, but not the only effective, way to link someone to a crime. Convicted criminals have al ready been found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt with other reliable forms of evidence such as fingerprints and eyewitness testimony. Appeals have evaluated the trial and concluded it was fair. If there were an injustice, it would have been ac rid e of a movie exis knowledged, and criminals would have had a new never puts his foot ont 1 Seconds ina Jolie, GiovanniK DuVall mihic Sena D-13 (Ribisi) from the handsi ime boss. Raines' object' to make up for Kip's# ence. ehicle vandals, inert d that stealing theequi" night is the smart sol# 1 >ut at least the potential!' chance to defend themselves. The American justice system is a well-designed process that has allowed everyone an equal chance for more than 200 years. A legal system in which juries give a definitive verdict, judges can overrule decisions, and appeals are guaranteed provides a great sense of security to the society it oversees. DNA retesting undermines this trustworthy system. Defen dants should not await a verdict that says, "We find the defen dant guilty at this point in time. But after technology advances, we may change our minds." Instead of retrying convict ed criminals, society should move forward by renewing its faith in the legal system. After all, one judge and 12 jurors found the defendant guilty, and appeals have upheld that conviction. Additional tax dollars are not needed to prove a criminal's guilt one more time. Instead, faith in the fairness and accuracy of the legal system will be the successful way to achieve closure. Other potential problems with allowing con victs a DNA test and trial must also be considered. This response by inmates could clog the entire le gal system by allowing more frivolous appeals. As Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis said, allowing DNA testing of convicted criminals "would be used as yet another tool by an undoubtedly guilty murderer to extend the ap peals process another five to 10 years." DNA testing should be a tool to help prove innocence the first time. But let closed cases be closed, and convictions be carried out. Let those found guilty be pun ished. Just as new types of DNA testing have been devised, other breakthroughs in technology will fol low. This does not mean that current convictions need to be postponed until these technologies are devel oped, just as DNA testing does not need to backtrack to prove innocence. There needs to be faith in the le gal system. Multiple courts have upheld the crimi nal's conviction and society is ready to punish the perpetrator. Justice cannot be put off any longer. Cayla Carr is a junior journalism major. hen the general public hears that the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has pro posed a new piece of legislation, the re action is usually one of boredom and indifference. After all, it is legislation that will probably only affect a small fraction of the population, right? However, this is not the case when the chair has just proposed legislation to provide those already convicted of crimes with access to DNA testing that jcould establish their inno cence. This is legislation that will proba bly be the most important ever con sidered hy Congress. Recently, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch intro duced legislation that would not only allow con victs to use DNA testing to ex onerate them selves, but also give them the chance to do so after their time for court appeals has ex pired. This action is the step in recognizing a grave problem with wrongful convictions. Incarcerating in nocent people is as obvious a flaw of the judicial system as is the releas ing of guilty persons. An error-free system is seen by many as unattainable. "Nobody is perfect" is the excuse offered by the "tough-on-crime" crowd. This topic could be argued endlessly, and it should be, for it would likely lead to a more efficient legal system. However, when the person in question is awaiting execution for a crime he or she did not commit, the argument becomes redundant and a crime in itself. Wrongfully convicting and then executing an in nocent person is a crime as serious as the crime in question. To do so while also denying the accused a chance to vindicate himself with advanced DNA testing is an even greater evil. During a previous Judiciary Committee hear ing, the plan was harshly criticized by law-en forcement officials who said it would lead to friv olous appeals that would clog courts. The critics pointed to the $2000 cost of each DNA test and claimed it would needlessly delay jus tice for victims. They argued that if the courts even at tempted to resolve the 180,000 DNA tests awaiting tri al, the progress of day-to-day justice would suffer enormous consequences. Publishers of Webster Dictionaries need to be con tacted because law-enforcement officials speaking out against post conviction DNA testing have redefined the word "ignorance." ' , One would be hard pressed to find more barbaric > reasoning than that employed by the opponents of this legislation. It seems bureaucracy knows no wor thy enemies. Since 1976, eight prisoners have been freed from death sentences and 67 others from lesser sentences af ter DNA tests proved their innocence. The proof is in the writing, and the writing is crys- Denying new ^ Bylaying the DNA testing tO implementation of COnvidS trying this legislation ' # ° would delay justice to prove their for victims of other i nn0 CenCe h enmes, opponents are placing a comparable to greater value on , the swift conciu- rnuraer. sion of trials than on human life. The idea is so despicable that it is bizarre and foreign to those who still retain a decent sense of humanity. The fight to correct the flaws in the judicial system is not a private one. Some heavy hitters are putting their reputations on the line in the interests of justice. After Texas Gov. George W. Bush delayed an execu tion to give a death-row inmate time for new DNA tests, media attention has focused on him. When asked what his stance on the current system is, Bush replied that reviewing death penalty cases is his "most profound" duty as governor and that his "worst nightmare" is the death of an innocent person. Bush, however, has not stated whether he will sup port the similar legislation being drafted in Texas right now. Many people say that Bush's move to delay this last execution was a politically motivated move and a poor indicator of his true sentiments. As it stands, only New York and Illinois permit DNA testing during appeals. Nebraska, Maryland> Oregon and New Hampshire are reviewing their sys tems. Texas legislators are also in the process of final izing legislation that would allow for the same testing in appeals. However noble these moves are, this is not an issue to be decided by the states. The legislation proposed by the Judiciary Committee must pass with the approval of the federal government. The logic used by the opponents of this legislation is flawed. When a wrongfully convicted person is exe cuted, murder is committed. If the opponents of the . proposed legislation are willing to accept the possibili ty of a wrongful execution, then they must accept their decision as murder. Luke McMahan is a senior industrial engineering major. ough fuel to movepasD ises into a final carcfe road-rage during a typitf Biased evaluations mar professor review site rugh to put this film ini 1 one-liners and ridicule* a can of gasoline tothrf riters. ie's only hope for accefc lar hot rods for a stunni ) = average G ombining modern technology with the desire to take an easy professor, the Website pick- aprof.com offers grade point approximately 15 minutf distributions and student eze in a few sexy looks* 1 evaluations of University of lage and Jolie that does* Texas-Austin (UT) and Texas Apparently, there is# professors. Though stu- al 50 cars, rescue a fan dents may think this site is the best resource to I make out in the backs* cor ne along since Cliff's Notes, they should be wary of its information. Before pickaprof.com, choosing the right profes- onds never gets out off* ! | sor meant relying on word-of-mouth recommenda tions. The site, while trying to help students, poor- ly attempts to replicate the word-of-mouth practice 3 (TP % ohering professor evaluations written by stu- Idents. Though both evaluations and word-of- mouth recommendations convey relevant informa tion, online versions are less reliable. An individual reading a pickaprof.com evalua- irk humor," Justitzsaid t . J J non knows neither the character of the student W 0 mav WOr who wrote the evaluation, nor how long ago the course was taken, nor what grade was received in the class. Because evaluators are completely anony mous, a resource of useful information is cheap ened and potentially tainted with bias. For example, a student who bears a grudge' against a professor is more likely to be motivated to whip up an evaluation than a student who is indif ferent toward the professor. And although pickaprof.com says it screens the reviews for profanity and direct attacks on profes- may future projects, said (ft 1 artistic achievement, antum Cow is continu# :oring schedule to raise : ■ded to complete so managing a rummage id accepting financial# id finishing the film, fficult to get businesses *w business endeavors, 1 ' of the money we raise lots) is scheduled fore*' s August. Justitz ispla# ing the film at Texas^ und to aid other strugfk sors, the online testimonies still offer an enticing platform for vindictive students to have the last word. It is impossible to discern whether negative responses are due to the professor's poor teaching abilities or to an individual student's poor work ethic. Likewise, not all students have the same aca demic abilities or ambition, and what is a walk-in- the-park class for one could very well be a chal lenging course for another. Pickaprof.com could increase the reliability of its online evaluations by asking students to pro vide a little personal information. *sr f BRANDON HENDERSON/Tm Battalion Information such as the semester the student took the course, the student's major, other classes taken at the same time, and the grade received in the class could be disclosed while maintaining the student's anonymity. In addition to offering online evaluations, pick- aprof.com displays grade distributions for each professor. The grade distributions are taken direct ly from the Universities' open records, but the manner in which the distributions are displayed is misleading. Each professor has the cumulative average of all the grades he or she has given out. However, some professors have taught a course longer than others, and therefore their grade distribution has a deeper pool of grades to more accurately depict their aver age grade distributions. y The problem arises in that, for some professors, this may encompass only two semesters and 100 students, while for other professors, eight semes ters and 13,000 students. For this reason, class size and the duration of a professor's teaching career should be considered when comparing grade distributions from pick- aprof.com. Furthermore, the consistency of the grade distri butions could be questioned. There are no foot notes concerning textbook changes, extraordinary events which may have affected a semester, or the addition of prerequisite courses that increase the knowledge base of students. On the other hand, the Website is fairly well de signed, easy to follow and available at no cost to the user. In respect to core curriculum courses, the site could be a potential gold mine if a few infor mational improvements were made. But for the time being, when it comes to stu dents assessing professors before taking their class es, the most well-rounded and reliable information still comes from word-of-mouth recommendations. Elizabeth Kohl is a senior accounting major. Mail Call Splitting Microsoft solves nothing In response to Sunnye Owens’ June 22 column. Maybe Microsoft is a monop oly, but breaking up Microsoft and breaking up monopolies of the past is quite different, because competition in operating systems is not something we really want. The software industry is not like any other industry. Unlike gasoline and telephones, which can be produced by anybody and meet the same standard, the software industry does not have a standard. When two programs are writ ten based on different stan dards, they will not be compati ble with each other. Windows so far has set a standard in the software industry. But competition in the operat ing system market will only break this standard. The result will be a rising price in application soft ware because all software then has no standard to follow. Several different versions of each program have to be written for the different operating sys tems. It will drive up the cost of application software production. It will also increasing the com plexity of buying software for everyday people, because they will have to make sure that what they are buying is compatible with their operating system. By preventing Microsoft from including its programs with the operating system, consumers will have to purchase software that came with the operating sys tem in the past. The breakup wifi not produce the desired effect. In my opinion, Microsoft’s proposed breakup plan is far " better than the one proposed by the government. Under Mi crosoft’s plan, the company will not be broken up, but will make is source code available to other companies, which will make soft ware development much easier and cheaper. The government will accom plish nothing by splitting Mi crosoft. They will be splitting a two-headed dragon into two one headed dragons. They are essen tially splitting Microsoft into Standard Oil and Bell Telephone. Yixuan Li Class of ’02 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 person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let ters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com