• It Should Be Required

    I believe DNA evidence should be required to convict a rapist. There are many cases in the United States that are convicted without DNA evidence and with very little reliable witness accounts. I feel like this has made a huge mess and in many cases it has given women the upper hand.

  • It can help by heaps

    DNA evidence should be used in every rape case. It can truthfully prove if the suspect is the rapist. It can also be major evidence if the guilty person is denying. He cannot deny his own genetics and DNA. I know that there is other ways to prove rape but it helps to use DNA.

    For example, say if someone has got raped. A DNA evidence is found on the victim, narrowing down the suspects majorly. Pt hen other work is done to prove the suspect is the one. The rapist denies the accusation so police show the DNA evidence which quietens him/her and then he/she is charged.

  • No but it'll help

    DNA evidence after a prolonged period of time will not help. Many victims are scared to admit what happened immediately and when they're compelled to give DNA evidence to support their case, They'll feel less validated.
    I do understand false accusations are plain wrong- and this does give rise to it, But at the same time telling a victim he/she wasn't assulted when they were, Not only leaves them in a vulnerable state of mind but also allows them and others to be a possible victim of such circumstance.

  • No DNA evidence shouldn't be necessary

    If DNA testing was a necessity, think of all the girls who have decided to press charges when they were emotionally ready to do so. It has been 2 years since I was sexually assaulted and I am beginning to press charges on the person who wronged me. I don't have DNA evidence to prove what happened, but I remember dates, times, and have texts and past actions that prove what happened to me. DNA evidence would make me feel like because I am making a heavy claim so many days after it happened, that I am automatically deemed a liar. It would make victims feel like there word isn't enough, which to convict a person your word is never enough, but it will make them feel like they have to convince everyone that this happened to them, instead of everyone getting a sick person off the street.

  • Nor is it sufficient

    DNA is present in consensual sex. So just because there is DNA evidence doesn't prove rape. And if it was rape there could've been a condom. There is other evidence to consider as well such as witnesses, or physical trauma consistent with rape.

    It's complicated. It's not straightforward. You could have a witness and it could turn out the witness has a history of lying under oath to help her friends get even. Then the witness isn't credible. The alleged victim might have a history of trying to frame people for rape. I hope that evidence is allowed and not excluded as "sexual history" as that is different from her just having lots of sex. Or maybe there is a reason she might want revenge.

    You could also look at the alleged perpetrator, does he have a history of domestic violence, particularly with the alleged victim?

  • No but it helps

    I think that a lot of things can be used to convict a rapist, but DNA is a strong tool to use against the person. You could also use interrogation, witness statements, and other things that would help out the case. You shouldn't demand that you have to have DNA evidence.

  • There are other things.

    No, DNA evidence is not needed to convict a rapist, because there are other ways to prove that the person engaged in non-consensual sex. Perhaps there is a person who saw them. Today, a lot of these things happen at parties. There might even be videos. All of these things are valid evidence.

  • No, there are many ways to convict a rapist

    If we start requiring DNA evidence to convict rapists, women will be victimized at even higher rates. All the rapist has to do is wear a condom, and there will be no DNA. In addition, a woman who has consensual sex and then regrets it, can use the presence of DNA to convict an innocent man. DNA or the absence of DNA should not be the only factor in determining if a woman was attacked.

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

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.