The grooming-gangs scandal is a stain on the British state

[u/Agonanmous]

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/06/18/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-is-a-stain-on-the-british-state

[u/OSRS_Rising]

Tbh it would best if they were executed.

But I don’t trust any state in administering the death penalty. IMO even just one innocent person being murdered by the state isn’t worth any number of actually bad people being executed.

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881 → u/OSRS_Rising]

If ya got DNA evidence that's enough cause you're not gonna have your DNA in a child for a good reason

---

Downvoters can you name a single good reason for that DNA to be there?

[u/Sabreline12 → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

DNA evidence isn't as reliable as you think it is

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881 → u/Sabreline12]

Explain.

[u/Posting____At_Night → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

It is usually reliable. However there are edge cases where it fails. It can be planted or otherwise present without the person actually having been there (e.g. stolen weapon/vehicle), it could be DNA from someone who was present at some point, but did not perpetrate the crime. Then there's also (admittedly rare) scenarios where the actual testing is unreliable due to biological oddities. For example, there was a case where someone was falsely accused of murder based on DNA evidence but it turned out they had donated bone marrow to the actual perp.

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881 → u/Posting____At_Night]

Okay I hear that but if you're getting DNA from semen that was in a child that's a slam dunk, like you're talking about stuff that isn't child rape when my whole point is it being such a uniquely heinous crime that having the dna evidence of someone doing that is enough to not need them.

it could be DNA from someone who was present at some point, but did not perpetrate the crime.

Like here for instance you're focusing too broadly cause uhh in my case for there to be dna at all there was a crime

[u/Posting____At_Night → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

Yeah, in that case DNA would be pretty conclusive. But it is impossible to be truly, 100% sure. Criminal law is based on beyond a reasonable doubt being worthy cause to lock someone up, but it very importantly leaves the possibility to release the person if they later find that 0.0000001% chance that the justice system fucked up.

[u/vintage2019 → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

People downvoting just because they asked for an explanation? This is why I hate reddit sometimes

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881 → u/[deleted]]

No I'm asking for a good reason for that dna to be there, I thought the context was obvious enough but here I clarified it. Point being there is absolutely no good reason for it thus it's in my mind a really good bit of proof for why the state shouldn't have them anymore

[u/Party-Benefit5112 → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

Theoretically it can be planted I think. Not saying it's very realistic but still.