4 ms·
100% is a reasonable goal. Victims and Eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes. Security footage can show someone who looks like a suspect but DNA (when properly
by LordKano 11y ago
100% is a reasonable goal.
Victims and Eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes. Security footage can show someone who looks like a suspect but DNA (when properly tested) provides irrefutable proof.
In many cases, especially old cases for which there have already been convictions, prosecutors are highly resistant to the idea of testing the DNA because they can lead to overturned convictions.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Victims and Eyewitnesses can and do make mistakes. Security footage can show someone who looks like a suspect but DNA (when properly tested) provides irrefutable proof. DNA (when properly tested) can provide a substantial degree of certainty of whether the person from whom the material in one sample came was the same as the person from whom the material in another sample came (and can provide an even greater certainty that that is not the case.) Of course, the provenance of at least one of the samples in a normal criminal investigation is itself to subject to all kinds of uncertainties which are resolved to what amounts to testimony of witnesses (in documentary form) to various steps in the process. So, in the sense that witnesses are fallible or potentially malicious, it doesn't actually eliminate that problem.