评论
打印
Had the case gone to trial, jurors may well have convicted Anderson,
但是对被告人来说，这很难被称为是一个小的错误。如果这个案子开庭审理，陪审团很可能将安德森定罪，
as they did the other three defendants (a third man, Marcellous Drummer, was eventually arrested).
就像他们对其他被告人做的那样（第三个人，马赛洛斯·德鲁默最终被捕）。
A 2008 study found that jurors rated DNA evidence as 95 percent accurate and 94 percent persuasive of a suspect's guilt.
2008年的一项研究发现，陪审团认为DNA证据95%的准确性和94%的说服力可以证明嫌疑人有罪。
"We're desperately hoping that DNA will come in to save the day, but it's still fitting into a flawed system,"
纽约大学法学教授、《监牢内幕》一书的作者艾琳·E·墨菲说：
says Erin E. Murphy, a professor of law at New York University and author of Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA.
“我们非常希望DNA能够拯救这个世界，但它仍然符合一个有缺陷的系统，这就是法医DNA的黑暗面。”
"If you don't bring in the appropriate amount of skepticism and restraint in using the method, there are going to be miscarriages of justice."
“如果在使用这种方法时没有适当的怀疑和克制，就会出现误判。”
Having narrowly escaped a terrible fate, Anderson himself has advice for law-enforcement officers: "There's more that's gotta be looked at than just the DNA," he says.
安德森侥幸逃脱了可怕的命运，他给执法官员提了建议：“除了DNA还有很多需要调查的地方。
"You've got to dig deeper. Reanalyze. Do everything all over again before you say, ‘This is what it is.' Because it may not necessarily be so."
“你必须进行更深入的调查。再三分析。在你们说‘这就是事情的真相’之前，将所有事情再进行一遍。因为事情未必是这样的。”
