mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> What would the average person care that you had a shoplifting bust as a
> kid?

The point is people don't know what I or other people who are not featured on TV, do. But they say smart
things about OJ (unconvicted), while not knowing about the people around them.

> Actually, all you ever come up with is a magic wand that makes people
> "know" whether someone's guilty or not.

Watching a crime taking place to know what happened and who is responsible, or about to take place to be
able to stop it, is not a magic wand. It's about as good as it can get.

> > For example, what do you mean about DNA testing?
>
> Hadn't thought it was a difficult concept, and it was explained earlier.
>
> > That DNA evidence would be required for a conviction?
>
> Nope.

Then what do you mean DNA testing for convictions? Do you mean for convicts who wish to contest their
convictions like a number of people later exonerated?

> >> >You seem not to recognize the problem above, even when I tell you I myself,
>
> >> Just because you tell me yourself does mean what you tell us is
> >> important.
>
> > Better law enforcement or legal system are not important?
>
> Sorry, please respond to the statements I make; do not change them to
> suit your immediate needs.

What problem  do you claim I am referring to?

> >> > Why doesn't the government also keep EVERYONE'S DNA on computer file
>
> >> Yeah, you'd think they'd've watched the X-Files more.
>
> > Why not convince me why it's not a good idea instead.
>
> Oh, I dunno, privacy issues, etc.
>
> Means nothing to you, of course.

So what if the government has people's DNA on file?

> > What should be done for such people even the legal system can recognize have not
>
> Give them more money?
>
> Again, not a major change to "the system", just a tweak.

How much should a wrongly convicted man get instead of the $40 in his pocket, and an uncertain future,
for near two decades in jail?

> > They even disagree with measures already in practice which I agree with, such as traffic
> > light cameras at intersections or traffic radar and cameras on highways.
>
> Actually, I've heard you claim you want cameras covering ALL of the
> earth.

In practice. Correct.

But they still disagree with measures already in practice such as traffic cameras.

> >> When pressed, you come up with bizarre statements about how you will
> >> punish criminals only, but never a clear statement on how you'll
> >> distinguish the innocent from the guilty.
>
> > How can I be any more clear than to propose people be monitored practically everywhere at all times,
> even to have monitoring and tracking devices implanted in their bodies?
>
> Because that's impossible?

Why?

> As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum?

How is this relevant?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more than three
burgers in my mouth!"