I finally got my hands on the WT library on CD (2005) and searched for myself. I wanted to see if there is any indication that the Society allows DNA evidence as one of the "two or three witnesses" requirements when it comes to testimony in child molestation or rape cases in the congregation.
We all know that molesters and rapists usually make sure that nobody is watching when they work their evil. We all know that DNA has been a godsend to our justice system. While not perfect, it's a far cry from the oft-predjudiced human witness.
The following find from a 1989 Awake sounded encouraging to me.
*** g89 8/8 p. 31 Small but Significant Clues ***
But this chemical decision-maker is now being used to help in making a different kind of decision: whether men will go free or go to prison, live or die. The very uniqueness of each individual’s DNA has opened the way to a new method of identifying individuals, called DNA fingerprinting.
Since DNA is found in virtually all the cells of the body and in most body fluids, criminals may be convicted because of leaving behind a few hairs or a bit of skin, even a wad of chewing gum. The new technique has been especially effective against sex offenders. Already, rapists who adamantly denied their guilt have been convicted by their own DNA. One murderer was sent to the electric chair on the strength of such testimony.
However, the 1998 Watchtower quote that follows, seems to exhibit their current stance on how imperfect DNA can be -- in, of course, their opinion.
*** w98 6/15 p. 28 True Justice -- When and How? ***
Once a case reaches court, decisions may be affected not only by what witnesses say but also by scientific evidence. In the increasingly complicated field of forensics, judge or jury may be called upon to decide guilt or innocence based on ballistics or the identification of fingerprints, handwriting, blood groups, hair color, textile threads, or DNA samples. One lawyer noted that courts are faced with "batteries of scientists describing procedures of bewildering complexity."
Moreover, the magazine Nature notes that not all scientists agree on the interpretation of forensic evidence. "There can be genuine disagreement between forensic scientists." Sad to say, "faulty forensic evidence has already been responsible for more than its fair share of faulty convictions."
No matter where we live, all judicial systems currently in operation reflect human shortcomings. So whom can we trust to protect the innocent?
I could be wrong in my search. I would be obliged to anybody who can show me otherwise, that the Society indeed accepts DNA as evidence -- supplanting a second human witness requirement that they feel bound by.
Fats
DNA too flawed as second witness
by Fatfreek 11 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
Fatfreek
-
stillajwexelder
the phrase "REASONABLE DOUBT" springs to mind - what is raesonable
-
Dansk
Hi Fats,
Sorry I can't help with your main question, but this caught my eye:
Notice the Org cites Nature as a reliable source - because Watchtower wants to emphasise how a prestigious magazine highlights how not all scientists agree on interpretation (thereby having an ulterior motive, that of protecting the over 25,000 paedos within its ranks) whereas it NEVER cites equally or more prestigious works that would undermine its thinking at every turn.Moreover, the magazine Nature notes that not all scientists agree on the interpretation of forensic evidence
Ian
-
stillajwexelder
The Society'sfavorite target of innacurate measuring was Carbon dating. Again ulterior motives. By the way, once a science starts it tends to improve all the time. DNA science will just get better and better and techniques will improve
-
Fatfreek
Yes, Ian, selective citation is one of their favorite tools.
I've seen where they use DNA as an argument against the teaching of evolution. It's okay if it supports what you believe -- not okay if it supports what you don't.
Fats
-
SirNose586
Notice the wording they use, like "increasingly complicated" and "bewildering." The tone is meant to make the r&f feel like DNA is "too complex" and therefore untrustworthy as a witness (which goes into the larger bias that anything "simple" must be better than anything complex).
That's why people go to college to learn forensic science. Oh I forgot! Higher learning is EEEEEVIL.
-
Jim_TX
Notice the wording they use, like "increasingly complicated" and "bewildering." The tone is meant to make the r&f feel like DNA is "too complex" and therefore untrustworthy as a witness (which goes into the larger bias that anything "simple" must be better than anything complex).
I think that this gets into the area where they are aiming their articles - and the level of reading to a certain level of education.
I used to have a wordprocessor that would assist me with this... I think... (It's been a long time ago - and several computers removed).
For example, they might write their articles at a 'seventh-grade level', and that means that they would keep terms simple enough for an average sevent-grader to understand.
Is anyone aware of the 'level' that they are using? I am just saying seventh-grade' - and I have no idea. One would have to capture a bit of their articles, and feed it into a program what would analyze it for complexity.
Regards,
Jim TX
-
mkr32208
Well you have to understand that because the person who is accused may be in close proximity to the 'victim' several times a week it's only natural that some DNA strands would be found on the 'victim!' Therefore the presence of hair, skin, oil, seminal fluids etc from the accused found on the very young sisters and brothers in the hall would only be natural and would not count as a second witness!
-
Forscher
Ohhh.
Sounds to me like they don't like PCR techniques! PCR, or Polymerase Chain Reaction is a DNA replication technique developed in the mid-1980s to make it possible to obtain a DNA profile when one doesn't have enough sample to reliably obtain a profile by other means. The DNA is chemically replicated to generate enough copies to work with. Like any other process, it is not infallible. I know that certain safeguards are put in place in the labs to insure that the replication is accurate, or at least identify batches which mess up in the process, but the last I heard they were not standardised across all labs and that probably has the folks at the Watchtower doubting the reliability of the process.
Forscher -
Beep,Beep
My question to you is, how do you tie those articles in with anything in the local congregation?
They do not seem to have anything that would apply. Both appear to be dealing with the judicial system of man. Don't see any connection between the two.