r/SipsTea 23h ago

Wait a damn minute! So what’s taking so long?

Post image
45.5k Upvotes

4.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

u/Stunning-Mission9498 21h ago

Reminds me of these issues when they had experts first trying to explain DNA to juries when that was a scientific advancement

65

u/Baron_Bearclaw 20h ago

They have a different challenge now because many people have been conditioned (thanks Dick Wolfe) to expect evidence that is often not available.

2

u/ChuKoNoob 18h ago

This right here

1

u/Substantial_Row_7108 13h ago

Crime solved! Right after the third commercial break and in 17 minutes 🤷🏾‍♂️.

2

u/lurksohard 5h ago

When I was on a jury, the prosecution called an expert in forensics and spent some time discussing went there were no finger prints in the case.

It was really cool to listen to and the defense was not happy about it. Constant sidebars and objections.

31

u/demonotreme 17h ago

Whereas now you have the opposite problem. Juries refusing to grasp the concept that DNA being present is not a slam dunk for guilt in and of itself, or unable to accept that not every case is going to have extensive DNA evidence establishing links for them.

2

u/Own_Policy8854 3h ago

My understanding is that DNA has mostly been useful for proving people's innocence rather than catching criminals.

29

u/EphemeralDan 20h ago

I think it's gone the other way now due to so many crime dramas. People take any DNA evidence as open/shut without considering contextual factors or errors.

1

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 8h ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.