Should DNA be considered acceptable evidence of rape?

  • DNA should be considered acceptable evidence of rape.

    Obviously, DNA is strong evidence in the case of a rape. If a man's semen is found on a rape victim, it's very likely that he committed the rape. Other DNA evidence, from skin, hair, or blood can also shed light on a case. If DNA evidence supports other evidence, it should be taken account in the case of a rape.

  • Well of course

    How else are you gonna tell who the rapist was? You can;t say DNA isn't acceptable evidence because that would just be silly. If someone was raped they should be allowed to take a DNA sample from her pelvic region to determine who it was that raped her. It's the only solution to that problem really. I honestly can't think of any other way to resolve the case

  • No it shouldn't

    DNA can be left behind by just touching the person. Or a pubic hair left in the toilet that they grabbed. They could just be trying to frame you and all they need it you to touch them and/or leave a few hairs around the bathroom or bedroom. No, It shouldn't be proof.

  • Sex doesn’t have to be forced

    So what if there’s DNA there? All that proves is that sex occurred. It doesn’t show that anyone actually got raped. It might be supporting evidence in a rape claim “your honour, the defendant claimed to be out of the country, but he has had sex with this woman”, but that is just one of many factors that could disprove someone’s alibi.

  • Circumstances are a key thing to this.

    Semen and dna can help in situations in which the victim cannot talk or where violently raped. However all that the dna evidence should point to it that sex did occur.

    So I have to sy dna is not suitable for rape allegation however it shows that somehow the two people had opportunity for coitus.

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