Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives. It is derived from the Greek word dimokratia , "popular government" which was coined from dēmos, "people" and kratos, "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy . The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule is able to accumulate power in a way that is harmful to democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.
Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significant contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient Rome , Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.
Forms of democracy
1) Reresentative Democracy
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes.
Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
2) Parliamentary democracy
Parliamentary democracy where government is appointed by parliamentary representatives as opposed to a 'presidential rule' by decree dictatorship. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.
3) Liberal democracy
A Liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities.
4) Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue (i.e., voting). Most direct democracies to date have been weak forms, relatively small communities, usually city-states. However, some see the extensive use of referendums, as in California, as akin to direct democracy in a very large polity with more than 20 million in California, 1898-1998 (2000).
In Switzerland, five million voters decide on national referendums and initiatives two to four times a year; direct democratic instruments are also well established at the cantonal and communal level. Vermont towns have been known for their yearly town meetings, held every March to decide on local issues.
5) Socialist Democracy
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented though a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy.
6) Anarchist Democracy
The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. Some anarchists oppose direct democracy while others favour it. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous. However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy, and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy.
7) Iroquois Democracy
Iroquois society had a form of participatory democracy and representative democracy. Iroquois government and law was discussed by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Because of this, some scholars regard it to have influenced the formation of American representative democracy. However scholars who reject multiculturalism disagree that the influence existed or was of any great importance.
8) Sortition
Sometimes called "democracy without elections", sortition is the process of choosing decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. It is not universally agreed that sortition should be considered "democracy" due to the lack of actual elections[citation needed].
9) Consensus democracy
Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule.
10) Interactive Democracy
Interactive Democracy seeks to utilise information technology to involve voters in law making. It provides a system for proposing new laws, prioritising proposals, clarifying them through parliament and validating them through referendum.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
INTERNAL SECURITY ACT ( ISA )
The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) (Malay: Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia. The legislation was inherited by Malaysia after it gained independence from Britain in 1957. In essence, it allows for the arrest of any person without the need for trial in certain defined circumstances. Malaysia is one of the few countries in the world whose Constitution allows for preventive detention during peacetime without safeguards that elsewhere are understood to be basic requirements for protecting fundamental human rights.
History
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party. The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year. The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed. The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished and in fact became an embedded feature of Malaysian law. In 1960 itself, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. It permitted the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to national security or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life in Malaysia. The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any manner prejudicial to the:
a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or
b) maintenance of essential services; or
c) economic life.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time. The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based or on different grounds.
In delivering the judgment of the Court, Steve L.K. Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) in Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors. v Nasharuddin bin Nasir (2003) 6 AMR 497 at page 506, has accepted that under Section 8 of the ISA the Minister has been conferred powers of preventive detention that ‘can be said to be draconian in nature’ but nevertheless valid under the Malaysian Constitution. In addition, preventive detention is also now allowed by the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
Article 149 of the Constitution of Malaysia under which a person may be detained is characterised by subjective language. Such terms as ‘substantial body’, ‘substantial number’, ‘cause to fear’, ‘excite disaffection’, ‘promote feelings of ill-will and hostility’, all embody wide areas of discretionary interpretation.
Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based. The detainee shall also be given an opportunity within three months, of making representations against the order to an Advisory Board . The Advisory Board as the name implies is not a court. Its determinations are also mere recommendations that the government is under no obligation to accept. It may also be handicapped in its deliberations by the discretionary power of the government to withhold facts, the disclosure of which would, in the executive’s opinion be against national interest.
Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly threatens the security of the country or any part thereof. After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus permitting indefinite detention without trial. In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts
History
Preventive detention first became a feature of the then Malaya in 1948 primarily to combat the armed insurgency of the Malayan Communist Party. The Emergency Regulations Ordinance 1948 was made, following the proclamation of an emergency, by the British High Commissioner Sir Edward Gent. It allowed the detention of persons for any period not exceeding one year. The 1948 ordinance was primarily made to counter acts of violence and, conceivably, preventive detention was meant to be temporary in application. The emergency ended in 1960 and with it ended the powers contained in the that ordinance as it was repealed. The power of preventive detention was however not relinquished and in fact became an embedded feature of Malaysian law. In 1960 itself, the government passed the Internal Security Act under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution. It permitted the detention, at the discretion of the Home Minister, without charge or trial of any person in respect of whom the Home Minister was satisfied that such detention was necessary to prevent him or her from acting in any manner prejudicial to national security or to the maintenance of essential services or to the economic life in Malaysia. The ISA is one of the most controversial Acts enacted under Article 149 of the Malaysian Constitution.
Section 8(1) of the ISA provides that ‘(i)f the minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary …’ then s/he may issue an order for his/her detention. The three grounds given in Section 8(1) upon which the order may be based is where a person has acted in any manner prejudicial to the:
a) security of Malaysia or part thereof; or
b) maintenance of essential services; or
c) economic life.
The power to detain seems to be restricted by Section 8(1) to a period not exceeding two years but the restriction is really illusionary because, by virtue of Section 8(7), the duration of the detention order may be extended for a further period not exceeding two years and thereafter for further periods not exceeding two years at a time. The extension to the detention order may be made on the same ground as those on which the original order was based or on different grounds.
In delivering the judgment of the Court, Steve L.K. Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) in Kerajaan Malaysia & 2 Ors. v Nasharuddin bin Nasir (2003) 6 AMR 497 at page 506, has accepted that under Section 8 of the ISA the Minister has been conferred powers of preventive detention that ‘can be said to be draconian in nature’ but nevertheless valid under the Malaysian Constitution. In addition, preventive detention is also now allowed by the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969. The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) has recently recommended that the ISA be repealed and replaced by new comprehensive legislation that, while taking a tough stand on threats to national security (including terrorism), does not violate basic human rights.
Article 149 of the Constitution of Malaysia under which a person may be detained is characterised by subjective language. Such terms as ‘substantial body’, ‘substantial number’, ‘cause to fear’, ‘excite disaffection’, ‘promote feelings of ill-will and hostility’, all embody wide areas of discretionary interpretation.
Article 151 of the Malaysian Constitution gives to any person detained without trial (under the special powers against subversion) certain administrative rights. By the terms of Article 151 the authority, on whose order a person is detained, shall, as soon as may be, inform the detainee of the grounds of detention and the allegations of fact on which the order is based. The detainee shall also be given an opportunity within three months, of making representations against the order to an Advisory Board . The Advisory Board as the name implies is not a court. Its determinations are also mere recommendations that the government is under no obligation to accept. It may also be handicapped in its deliberations by the discretionary power of the government to withhold facts, the disclosure of which would, in the executive’s opinion be against national interest.
Any person may be detained by the police for up to 60 days without trial for an act which allegedly threatens the security of the country or any part thereof. After 60 days, one may be further detained for a period of two years each, to be approved by the Minister of Home Affairs, thus permitting indefinite detention without trial. In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts
MORE ON DNA
After reading a lot articles and report on DNA in local media, I feel it is right time for me to give an account of two mothers whose DNA did not match the DNA of their children.
Lydia Fairchild, an unemployed mother of three children living in Washington State, had her DNA and that of her children tested as part of the routine procedure of applying for welfare assistance. When the results didn’t match, Fairchild was denied government assistance and accused of committing welfare fraud. She protested that some mistake must have been made, but a CPS worker told her, “Nope. DNA is 100 percent foolproof and it doesn’t lie.” Another worker told her, “You know, we’re able to come get your kids any time.”
Fairchild received a summons to appear in court to have her children taken away. Before the case was resolved, however, she gave birth to another child. A court officer was present to take DNA samples from her and from the baby. When the two didn’t match, she was accused of being a paid surrogate.
The case was finally resolved when Fairchild’s attorney read in a medical journal about a similar case in Boston where a woman whose DNA did not match that of her children was found to have a rare condition called chimerism, caused by the fusion of two fertilized eggs in the womb. The woman, in effect, was her own twin. The DNA of her blood did not match the DNA of other body tissues. Fairchild was able to keep her children after further testing proved that she also was a chimera.
Lydia Fairchild, an unemployed mother of three children living in Washington State, had her DNA and that of her children tested as part of the routine procedure of applying for welfare assistance. When the results didn’t match, Fairchild was denied government assistance and accused of committing welfare fraud. She protested that some mistake must have been made, but a CPS worker told her, “Nope. DNA is 100 percent foolproof and it doesn’t lie.” Another worker told her, “You know, we’re able to come get your kids any time.”
Fairchild received a summons to appear in court to have her children taken away. Before the case was resolved, however, she gave birth to another child. A court officer was present to take DNA samples from her and from the baby. When the two didn’t match, she was accused of being a paid surrogate.
The case was finally resolved when Fairchild’s attorney read in a medical journal about a similar case in Boston where a woman whose DNA did not match that of her children was found to have a rare condition called chimerism, caused by the fusion of two fertilized eggs in the womb. The woman, in effect, was her own twin. The DNA of her blood did not match the DNA of other body tissues. Fairchild was able to keep her children after further testing proved that she also was a chimera.
The truth will Prevail
How Reliable Is DNA Testing of YFZ Families?
Among the vicious rumors circulated regarding the FLDS families in Texas is the claim that DNA testing was necessary to determine which children belonged to which parents because the parents had been uncooperative when they were questioned and the children, having been raised communally, didn’t even know who their parents were. Although CPS couldn’t seem to understand or to get its records straight, the parents were truthful during questioning and provided the requested information numerous times.
When the rulings by the Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court finally allowed parents to gather up their children, no parents had any difficulty identifying their children, and the resulting joyful reunions showed that the children also knew exactly where they belonged. Now that results from the DNA tests ordered by Judge Barbara Walther are coming in, a natural question to ask is how reliable or useful those test results are likely to be.
Most people assume that DNA identification is virtually infallible, and it is true that such tests generally have a high level of reliability. However, mistakes have been made with tragic consequences. As reported in Forensic-Evidence.com, a British case in February of 2000 shows the fallacy of relying too heavily on DNA evidence.
A suspect whose DNA had been placed in the national data base years earlier when he was accused of hitting his daughter in a family dispute was arrested for a burglary because it appeared that his DNA matched samples collected at the crime scene. At the time of the burglary, the man was living 200 miles away from the site and because of advanced Parkinson’s disease was unable to drive and was barely able to dress himself. Still police argued that he had to be the culprit because the chance of an error in the DNA match was only one in 37 million. The man was arrested and spent four months in jail before his solicitor was able to demand a retest, which showed that when additional markers on the DNA molecules were considered, there was not a match.
Another two cases were reported in FirstPost on November 2, 2006:
“In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.”
The same article mentioned that the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, now feared that his invention was undergoing “mission creep” and that with the power of the government to take DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offense and to store it indefinitely, the UK was being turned into a nation of suspects.
The following is from an article by Robert D. McFadden first published August 15, 1989, and reprinted in the New York Times of July 4, 2008:
“In a case with possibly important implications for scores of criminal and paternity cases across the nation, a Bronx judge ruled yesterday that sophisticated genetic tests that had linked a murder suspect to a victim were not scientifically reliable.
“The decision was believed to be the first serious challenge to DNA ‘fingerprinting,’ a technique for analyzing genetic material, like blood, semen, skin or hair, to identify its source. The technique has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states, and many scientists and lawyers have assumed the tests were infallible.
“In yesterday's ruling, the judge held that DNA tests could be used to show that blood found on the suspect's wristwatch was not his. But the judge said other DNA tests that purported to show it was the victim's blood were flawed and would not be admissible as evidence at the trial, which he scheduled for Sept. 11.”
Another article from Forensic-Evidence.com also calls into question the reliability of DNA results in the courtroom:
“In the recent case of Crawford v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0683-99-1, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held, on September 19, 2000, that instructing the jury that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing is deemed a reliable scientific technique and thus recognized under the laws of Virginia was improper when DNA evidence was used to prove a person’s identity.”
The problem with many DNA identifications is not that the science itself is flawed but that there is a very real chance of human error in gathering the samples, maintaining the records, and performing the tests.
Britain seems to have had more than its share of problems with the use of flawed DNA testing in court cases. As reported in the Times Online of February 11, 2008, Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, revealed serious mistakes made by DNA Diagnostics, a firm that bills itself as “the world’s largest and most experienced private DNA testing laboratory…[performing]…3 out of 4 private DNA paternity tests in the United States.” The company admitted losing from its case files vital identification details in 122 paternity cases so that the findings could not be relied upon.
Judge Hayden also said that Anglia DNA, a second British company, provided misleading results in a case involving the welfare of eight children. The company reported that two of the children likely were half-siblings; however, testing by a third company showed no relationship. When Anglia DNA retested the children, they admitted their error but blamed their mistake on unclear instructions from the lawyer, claiming that they had not been told to consider the possibility that none of the children were related.
The UK maintains a list of government-approved testing services. As a result of these cases, the Ministry of Justice, after a review of paternity testing services, had to remove half of the companies from its approved list because they lacked up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria. Although the U.S. has regulations on laboratories, it has no such list of government-approved testing services and may be in a condition every bit as serious as the UK.
Problems with DNA testing in this country have been found even in government facilities. As recently as one year ago the Massachusetts State Police laboratory was involved in a scandal concerning the mishandling of DNA evidence over the past twenty years. Robert Pino, the DNA database administrator, was fired, but investigation by the U.S Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that problems went far beyond Pino’s incompetence. In examining the laboratory’s computerized database, it was determined that incomplete genetic profiles had been entered in 12 cases out of a sample of 100.
In the YFZ case, CPS workers and others have been notorious for jumbling information and reaching unfounded conclusions. Several of these incidents are documented in Marie Musser’s Day by Day Events of the YFZ Ranch Raid. She records under date of April 8 that while she was staying at the Fort Concho Stables, Texas Rangers arrived to serve papers. She received papers for Marie Musser, but when she read them, she found that the last name on the papers was Barlow and that all of the children listed were girls. Marie has three boys.
On April 13 she relates how CPS decided the mothers’ ages according to their own convenience. A 35-year-old mother was not permitted to see an attorney because she appeared to be under 18, but when the older boys were taken away, she was suddenly of age so that her 11-year-old son could be taken. On April 14 a mother with a two-month-old baby was loaded on the bus with mothers of children 5 years old and older. Other ladies who had previously been denied access their attorneys because they looked too young were declared to be of age and sent away with the other mothers. Many YFZ mothers could tell similar stories of incomplete or jumbled records and children unaccounted for.
CPS may have been justifiably confused at times by the sheer number of mothers and children and by the similarity of names. But who is to say that many of the same mistakes were not made in gathering the DNA samples?
Considering these factors, as well as the lack of legal justification for requiring DNA samples in the first place, the test results are, at best, questionable evidence.
Among the vicious rumors circulated regarding the FLDS families in Texas is the claim that DNA testing was necessary to determine which children belonged to which parents because the parents had been uncooperative when they were questioned and the children, having been raised communally, didn’t even know who their parents were. Although CPS couldn’t seem to understand or to get its records straight, the parents were truthful during questioning and provided the requested information numerous times.
When the rulings by the Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court finally allowed parents to gather up their children, no parents had any difficulty identifying their children, and the resulting joyful reunions showed that the children also knew exactly where they belonged. Now that results from the DNA tests ordered by Judge Barbara Walther are coming in, a natural question to ask is how reliable or useful those test results are likely to be.
Most people assume that DNA identification is virtually infallible, and it is true that such tests generally have a high level of reliability. However, mistakes have been made with tragic consequences. As reported in Forensic-Evidence.com, a British case in February of 2000 shows the fallacy of relying too heavily on DNA evidence.
A suspect whose DNA had been placed in the national data base years earlier when he was accused of hitting his daughter in a family dispute was arrested for a burglary because it appeared that his DNA matched samples collected at the crime scene. At the time of the burglary, the man was living 200 miles away from the site and because of advanced Parkinson’s disease was unable to drive and was barely able to dress himself. Still police argued that he had to be the culprit because the chance of an error in the DNA match was only one in 37 million. The man was arrested and spent four months in jail before his solicitor was able to demand a retest, which showed that when additional markers on the DNA molecules were considered, there was not a match.
Another two cases were reported in FirstPost on November 2, 2006:
“In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.”
The same article mentioned that the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, now feared that his invention was undergoing “mission creep” and that with the power of the government to take DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offense and to store it indefinitely, the UK was being turned into a nation of suspects.
The following is from an article by Robert D. McFadden first published August 15, 1989, and reprinted in the New York Times of July 4, 2008:
“In a case with possibly important implications for scores of criminal and paternity cases across the nation, a Bronx judge ruled yesterday that sophisticated genetic tests that had linked a murder suspect to a victim were not scientifically reliable.
“The decision was believed to be the first serious challenge to DNA ‘fingerprinting,’ a technique for analyzing genetic material, like blood, semen, skin or hair, to identify its source. The technique has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states, and many scientists and lawyers have assumed the tests were infallible.
“In yesterday's ruling, the judge held that DNA tests could be used to show that blood found on the suspect's wristwatch was not his. But the judge said other DNA tests that purported to show it was the victim's blood were flawed and would not be admissible as evidence at the trial, which he scheduled for Sept. 11.”
Another article from Forensic-Evidence.com also calls into question the reliability of DNA results in the courtroom:
“In the recent case of Crawford v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0683-99-1, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held, on September 19, 2000, that instructing the jury that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing is deemed a reliable scientific technique and thus recognized under the laws of Virginia was improper when DNA evidence was used to prove a person’s identity.”
The problem with many DNA identifications is not that the science itself is flawed but that there is a very real chance of human error in gathering the samples, maintaining the records, and performing the tests.
Britain seems to have had more than its share of problems with the use of flawed DNA testing in court cases. As reported in the Times Online of February 11, 2008, Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, revealed serious mistakes made by DNA Diagnostics, a firm that bills itself as “the world’s largest and most experienced private DNA testing laboratory…[performing]…3 out of 4 private DNA paternity tests in the United States.” The company admitted losing from its case files vital identification details in 122 paternity cases so that the findings could not be relied upon.
Judge Hayden also said that Anglia DNA, a second British company, provided misleading results in a case involving the welfare of eight children. The company reported that two of the children likely were half-siblings; however, testing by a third company showed no relationship. When Anglia DNA retested the children, they admitted their error but blamed their mistake on unclear instructions from the lawyer, claiming that they had not been told to consider the possibility that none of the children were related.
The UK maintains a list of government-approved testing services. As a result of these cases, the Ministry of Justice, after a review of paternity testing services, had to remove half of the companies from its approved list because they lacked up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria. Although the U.S. has regulations on laboratories, it has no such list of government-approved testing services and may be in a condition every bit as serious as the UK.
Problems with DNA testing in this country have been found even in government facilities. As recently as one year ago the Massachusetts State Police laboratory was involved in a scandal concerning the mishandling of DNA evidence over the past twenty years. Robert Pino, the DNA database administrator, was fired, but investigation by the U.S Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that problems went far beyond Pino’s incompetence. In examining the laboratory’s computerized database, it was determined that incomplete genetic profiles had been entered in 12 cases out of a sample of 100.
In the YFZ case, CPS workers and others have been notorious for jumbling information and reaching unfounded conclusions. Several of these incidents are documented in Marie Musser’s Day by Day Events of the YFZ Ranch Raid. She records under date of April 8 that while she was staying at the Fort Concho Stables, Texas Rangers arrived to serve papers. She received papers for Marie Musser, but when she read them, she found that the last name on the papers was Barlow and that all of the children listed were girls. Marie has three boys.
On April 13 she relates how CPS decided the mothers’ ages according to their own convenience. A 35-year-old mother was not permitted to see an attorney because she appeared to be under 18, but when the older boys were taken away, she was suddenly of age so that her 11-year-old son could be taken. On April 14 a mother with a two-month-old baby was loaded on the bus with mothers of children 5 years old and older. Other ladies who had previously been denied access their attorneys because they looked too young were declared to be of age and sent away with the other mothers. Many YFZ mothers could tell similar stories of incomplete or jumbled records and children unaccounted for.
CPS may have been justifiably confused at times by the sheer number of mothers and children and by the similarity of names. But who is to say that many of the same mistakes were not made in gathering the DNA samples?
Considering these factors, as well as the lack of legal justification for requiring DNA samples in the first place, the test results are, at best, questionable evidence.
The history repeating in Malaysia
The Dreyfus Affair was a political scandal which divided France from the 1890s to the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in November 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Jewish background who was in advanced training with the Army's General Staff. Alfred Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment which he began to serve in solitary confinement on Devil's Island in French Guiana.
Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to light and identified: a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. However French high level military officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated Dreyfus. Worse, French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for Germany. They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a resounding public intervention by Emile Zola in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards) and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards).
All the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated to be baseless. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906. He later served during the whole of World War l, ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
We the rakyat of Malaysia fully hpoe that the history will repeat in Malaysia and justice will prevail for our de facto PM DSAI.
Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to light and identified: a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. However French high level military officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated Dreyfus. Worse, French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for Germany. They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a resounding public intervention by Emile Zola in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards) and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards).
All the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated to be baseless. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906. He later served during the whole of World War l, ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
We the rakyat of Malaysia fully hpoe that the history will repeat in Malaysia and justice will prevail for our de facto PM DSAI.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Najib worse off with two-year transition
At first glance, it would seem that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak should be happy at Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement that he would hand over power in the middle of 2010. But dig a little deeper and you would find that the announcement actually only further cements the precarious political situation that Najib finds himself in.
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that 'one week is a long time in politics'. As we've seen lately, a lot can transpire within just a few days. Two years can be an eternity in political terms.By announcing a firm schedule for stepping down, Abdullah has bought himself some time. This removes some of the pressure from those within Umno who want him to commit firmly to passing the baton to Najib.It also gives him ample time to rebuild his support base as well as provide ample time for Najib's enemies – be they from de facto PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's camp or from Abdullah's camp – to further weaken the already embattled DPM.Nothing that Abdullah has said and done post-election has indicated that he's willing to step down from his current position as Umno president or PM. If he genuinely wants to step down, he could easily do so in December at the Umno General Assembly. He doesn't have to wait two years.The reason he gives for wanting to wait until 2010 is that he has unfinished business – ostensibly the reforms that he had promised to institute. Given that he failed to institute any major reforms in four years when he had the biggest mandate in history, it's hard to imagine that it's possible for him to achieve anything in two years in his weakened state. So that rationale is just plain disingenuous.Unlike his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is very much is own man and left office more or less on his own terms, Abdullah seems very much like a PM who is hanging on to power with the aid of his inner coterie.
Announcement is to buy Abdullah time.
That is why we believe the two-year timetable is just a tactic to buy him time. There are too many people in his camp who have too much to lose if Abdullah is no longer PM and they will use this two-year time frame to shore him up simultaneously while working to weaken his deputy. Najib was already in a beleaguered position before the transition date announcement. His name had been mentioned in one statutory declaration, later retracted, and his wife, Rosmah, in another. He had also admitted having a private meeting with the alleged victim in the Anwar sodomy case, before the police reports were made. All this has tainted his image badly.Since two years is a long time, it is possible for Najib to rehabilitate himself somewhat. If no one comes up with proof of his or Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case; if no one can directly link him to the sodomy allegations; he can somewhat salvage his reputation.But even then, it doesn't mean he will take over from Abdullah. Mahathir has already said that Najib will not become PM in 2010 because some forces close to Abdullah will topple him by then. We more or less agree with that assessment.Given that Najib surely knows Abdullah's underlying motive for this announcement – he may be timid but he's not stupid – what can he possibly do to fight back? The answer is nothing much.He is a man battling two fronts – on one flank stands Anwar who blames him for the sodomy allegations and on the other flank stands Abdullah's camp, who recognise Najib for what he is – the most serious threat to Abdullah's position.It is hard to imagine that he would be able to make any political moves against Anwar. Any explicit moves on Najib's part would be perceived as him taking an active role in the political 'conspiracy' against Anwar. Furthermore, he might not have control of the instruments of power which can be used to threaten or silence Anwar, at least when it comes to his attacks on Najib.The person who has access to these levers of state power, Abdullah, has shown that he is more than happy to sit back and his two biggest rivals – Anwar and Najib – to battle it out with each other.
Najib’s hands are tied
There's no much Najib can do against Abdullah either. Because an handover schedule has been announced, he no longer has any excuse to challenge him during the Umno General Assembly in December.The best that his people can do is to tacitly support a potential challenger to Abdullah – either Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah or Muhyiddin Yassin – so that Abdullah would get embroiled in a bruising battle for survival.Abdullah would probably prevail given the powers of incumbency but he would emerge even further weakened than he is now. But even this is not a politically attractive option. There are risks. What if either Razaleigh or Muhyiddin wins? There goes any hope for Najib to become PM.In short, Najib is now a man with very few options. And that is why we say that the firm timeline for handing over power – though on the surface might seem like a win for Najib – is actually bad news for him.
At first glance, it would seem that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak should be happy at Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement that he would hand over power in the middle of 2010. But dig a little deeper and you would find that the announcement actually only further cements the precarious political situation that Najib finds himself in.
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that 'one week is a long time in politics'. As we've seen lately, a lot can transpire within just a few days. Two years can be an eternity in political terms.By announcing a firm schedule for stepping down, Abdullah has bought himself some time. This removes some of the pressure from those within Umno who want him to commit firmly to passing the baton to Najib.It also gives him ample time to rebuild his support base as well as provide ample time for Najib's enemies – be they from de facto PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's camp or from Abdullah's camp – to further weaken the already embattled DPM.Nothing that Abdullah has said and done post-election has indicated that he's willing to step down from his current position as Umno president or PM. If he genuinely wants to step down, he could easily do so in December at the Umno General Assembly. He doesn't have to wait two years.The reason he gives for wanting to wait until 2010 is that he has unfinished business – ostensibly the reforms that he had promised to institute. Given that he failed to institute any major reforms in four years when he had the biggest mandate in history, it's hard to imagine that it's possible for him to achieve anything in two years in his weakened state. So that rationale is just plain disingenuous.Unlike his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is very much is own man and left office more or less on his own terms, Abdullah seems very much like a PM who is hanging on to power with the aid of his inner coterie.
Announcement is to buy Abdullah time.
That is why we believe the two-year timetable is just a tactic to buy him time. There are too many people in his camp who have too much to lose if Abdullah is no longer PM and they will use this two-year time frame to shore him up simultaneously while working to weaken his deputy. Najib was already in a beleaguered position before the transition date announcement. His name had been mentioned in one statutory declaration, later retracted, and his wife, Rosmah, in another. He had also admitted having a private meeting with the alleged victim in the Anwar sodomy case, before the police reports were made. All this has tainted his image badly.Since two years is a long time, it is possible for Najib to rehabilitate himself somewhat. If no one comes up with proof of his or Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case; if no one can directly link him to the sodomy allegations; he can somewhat salvage his reputation.But even then, it doesn't mean he will take over from Abdullah. Mahathir has already said that Najib will not become PM in 2010 because some forces close to Abdullah will topple him by then. We more or less agree with that assessment.Given that Najib surely knows Abdullah's underlying motive for this announcement – he may be timid but he's not stupid – what can he possibly do to fight back? The answer is nothing much.He is a man battling two fronts – on one flank stands Anwar who blames him for the sodomy allegations and on the other flank stands Abdullah's camp, who recognise Najib for what he is – the most serious threat to Abdullah's position.It is hard to imagine that he would be able to make any political moves against Anwar. Any explicit moves on Najib's part would be perceived as him taking an active role in the political 'conspiracy' against Anwar. Furthermore, he might not have control of the instruments of power which can be used to threaten or silence Anwar, at least when it comes to his attacks on Najib.The person who has access to these levers of state power, Abdullah, has shown that he is more than happy to sit back and his two biggest rivals – Anwar and Najib – to battle it out with each other.
Najib’s hands are tied
There's no much Najib can do against Abdullah either. Because an handover schedule has been announced, he no longer has any excuse to challenge him during the Umno General Assembly in December.The best that his people can do is to tacitly support a potential challenger to Abdullah – either Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah or Muhyiddin Yassin – so that Abdullah would get embroiled in a bruising battle for survival.Abdullah would probably prevail given the powers of incumbency but he would emerge even further weakened than he is now. But even this is not a politically attractive option. There are risks. What if either Razaleigh or Muhyiddin wins? There goes any hope for Najib to become PM.In short, Najib is now a man with very few options. And that is why we say that the firm timeline for handing over power – though on the surface might seem like a win for Najib – is actually bad news for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
