Amazon.com Widgets

Faulty DNA evidence leads to a forensic failure in several European crimes between 1993 and 2008: Should criminal investigators place so much faith in DNA evidence?

Faulty DNA evidence leads to a forensic failure in several European crimes between 1993 and 2008: Should criminal investigators place so much faith in DNA evidence?
  • DNA is a valuable tool

    I think it's great that so much DNA evidence is available, and I don't think that we should stop using it or use it less in courts. However, we do need to remember that DNA results are subject to human error. Before evidence is admissable in court, it should be checked and re-checked by more than one lab.

  • Yes, they should.

    DNA evidence is apparently not inflatable, but it is very, very accurate. As time goes on and we understand DNA better, as well as the technology and methods used to collect it improve it is becoming more and more reliable. It is more reliable than most other evidence when collected properly.

  • No, DNA should normally be considered alongside of other evidence to secure a prosecution.

    It is unwise for criminal investigators to place so much faith on DNA evidence as It is possible for DNA to be transferred to items after the crime. This transference can happen accidentally to items used as evidence at the time of collection or during storage. Wherever there is reasonable doubt about the validity of DNA evidence, there needs to be additional evidence linked to the accused person to ensure a just prosecution.

  • They need to investigate all aspects of the case.

    It's sad that the DNA evidence was faulty in the recent past as that changes how much trust the public and judiciary can put into forensic investigations. A new approach to investigating a crime is needed, one where investigators look at every angle of the case using old and new methods.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.