4 ms·

DNA should only be used to prove innocence and to corroborate other evidence. Just because someone's DNA is there, doesn't mean they did something. It is too

• jacquesm 7y ago
  That's a pretty good starting point. DNA will be falsifiable soon enough too which will render the whole idea of DNA as evidence of anything moot.
• e40 7y ago
  But there are some cases where there is only DNA. There is a double murder going to trial soon where DNA found via GEDmatch is the only evidence. My fear is that planting DNA isn't something individuals are likely to do (thought it's not impossible), but something the state or large organizations are likely to have the resources to do properly. Corrupt LEOs. Corrupt politicians. It seems a lot easier than many alternative corrupt practices.
  • cm2187 7y ago
    Mixing/pollution of DNA samples in DNA testing labs (or faked DNA tests by unscrupulous labs) can also have some pretty bad consequences and have in the past.
  • village-idiot 7y ago
    DNA also just ends up all over the place for innocent reasons. If someone gets murdered in a rental car that I rented last month, chances are my dna will be there. DNA evidence often struggles when it comes to temporality, as it can tell you who and where, but it can’t tell you when the evidence was placed there. Historically there have been some pretty bad abuses in court over the accuracy and reliability of dna evidence, with some convictions that had to later get overturned.
  • DocTomoe 7y ago
    Who needs corruption when you can have sheer incompetence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn
• nezzor 7y ago
  Would you feel differently if your child’s murerer was on trial? Not trying to be gross, just trying to shine light on the idea that judges are in a difficult situation. They have to consider fairness for all parties involved.
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Would you feel differently if your child’s murerer was on trial? Why would someone be less concerned with the reliability of the criminal justice system in that case? A low standard means it is easier for the government to let the guilty go free while making a show of punishing someone convenient.
    • rocqua 7y ago
      There is a trade off between improving the probability of convicting the correct perpetrator and decreasing the probability of falsely convicting someone who is innocent. This tradeoff is essentially managed by the threshold required for a conviction. The legal system is generally not optimized purely for the first part of this trade off. It makes sense that people who suffered from a crime would emotionally prefer more focus on a correct conviction at the cost of more false positives.
  • rtkwe 7y ago
    That question is one of the pit falls we have to avoid to preserve any chance of avoiding a police surveillance state. "What would you allow if you were maximally emotionally impacted by a crime" is basically a blank check for 100% surveillance because inevitably any restriction on methods will eventually allow some crime to go unsolved.
    • Aromasin 7y ago
      Exactly this. At worst, you need to at least taper the emotionally charged question with the counter-point; "Would you feel differently if your child was falsely accused of murder because of genetic comtamination?"
• tbyehl 7y ago
  DNA plants itself. https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/ https://www.wired.com/story/dna-transfer-framed-murder/