My Veiws From My First Topic

From the topic Lab Results: Crime Analysts Must Testify
My topic argues the point of should there be witnesses for DUI cases for the reporting of test results. The argument is for the courts and for the people to realize that the laws need to be upgraded. There is an amendment that says every accused person has the right to confront their accuser, but is it right if a test result is the only thing that actually makes a lab technician a witness? Is it right to let a person off for a crime just because the person who did the test couldn’t make it to court to give their testimony of the test result? When a lab technician is required to come to court, it takes tax payer’s money by having them take time during work to testify, and it takes time away from the other cases the lab technician could be working on. We have to ask ourselves if there is a better way to go about this in order for the one’s accused have the ability to question their accuser and still leave the lab technician free from the courts so they can concentrate on the cases that are still in need of investigation.

In my topic, the most salient point was when they gave the number of subpoenaed for technicians in DUI cases. How can technicians be subpoenaed 43 times for the year 2008 and then for 925 times the next year in 2009 in Virginia? When technicians are always being called away from their current cases to go to court for their old cases, how can they fully concentrate on the cases they are currently working on? Every technician has a lot of cases going at once. When they have to take time aside for the courts because they are subpoenaed, how can we tell they are not being strained too far in too short of a time? How do we know if the evidence or investigation they are looking into isn’t becoming a blind spot for them?

Another question we must ask ourselves is if this can affect us. The answer is yes; it can, and it is. It is affecting us in several ways. The most obvious way is how it is taking our tax money to continue the courts cases, for example, when the date has to be postponed. Another less obvious way is when the person who is accused is let go because there witnesses against them did not show up to testify. It could also affect the ruling of the other cases the technician is working on because if he is proven false in one case, then he may be believed to be false in the other cases he is working on. What I am meaning is that the technician’s career could be destroyed just because a lawyer was able to get his client off the charges that were against him.

We also have to ask how this can affect the future of this country if we do not get this fixed in the near future. The ways it could affect the future is that we would not grow to fit the laws to what is happening in the present, and it could cause a conflict of interest for certain people. The amendments were created in the beginning of this country’s government which means the meaning of the amendment that says that every accused has the right to face their accuser needs to be rethought to match the type of cases we are facing now. We are in the age of technology which means the results of a test result mostly comes from a machine, so how can technicians from a lab give witness to the way the test was done? I mean, I guess they could always explain how the test is supposed to be done, but could they give every detail of that one case that they are supposed to be a witness too?

Many people believe they should have the right to question those who are accusing them or someone they care for, but what if the only thing that the person can question is the result of a test result? When we know a test result could be wrong, but it is highly unlikely that it actually is wrong. The person will always doubt the result because they do not believe a person they personally know could be stupid enough to drink and drive. What can we do to fix this public doubt in the lab technician? Should we have them do two tests by two different technicians so there is less self doubt, and if they are not the same, do another test by yet another technician? Or, should we just have a representative for each crime lab that could give the facts as they know it as to the way the technician ran the test and testify that absolutely no evidence was tampered with? The only good thing about the questioning is that it could help catch the technicians that are being paid off to give the wrong test result, but then forgery would most likely not be happening if there was multiple test results, and each employee was being looked into on a regular basis to see if there was any conflict of interests.

On my topic, they bring up a cause were a technician could write a report of their findings instead of going to court. This is only if both parties would accept the given testimony as fact. The pros of this cause include leaving more free time for the technicians to do other cases. The cons are that the defendant could reject the test results, and the technicians would end up having to rearrange their schedule to fit in the court date around the other cases they are working on as well.
I believe, for the topic I chose, I would strengthen it so that other states would take up the standing that Virginia did against DUI cases. Too many people are being let off the hook and too much tax money is being used to set court cases that seem to always be postponed. To add strength to this argument, I would add more facts like percentages, but the topic was only centered on one state, so I believe it was writing with as many facts that could be obtained.

My point of veiw for the first blog posted.

The main point of my first blog is to explain that the court system is wasting
money by having witnesses for cases where the use of a test result should be
enough for the results of the courts.The evidence that support this point is
that to many state labs technicians are having to put aside there current cases
to go to court for a previous case.Even if we are to allow the courts to only
have the test result and not to have the witnesses come to court it would add
conflict to the process if some how the results failed to gave the right
results. The state labs need to find a way to prove the machine are working
correctly, so in court the results are not thought of as being false. The
courts need to be more adjustable to the techicians who are witnesses, and find
a new way to prove the correctness of a test result. We need to find away that
the courts don't use to much time and alot of money, but at the same time let
the have the best possible knowledge to put the bad people in jail.

This is something that I believe is wasting money from the government!

This remind me that our court system and laws still need to be improved after being writing a long time ago. Having to always be at a court date to testified is wasting valuable time criminologist need to be solving cases.