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