DNA is a problem because it's presented as proof to a jury, who convict. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ https:

DNA is a problem because it's presented as proof to a jury, who convict. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso... From the beginning, Sutton and Adams denied any involvement. They both had alibis, and neither of them matched the profile from the victim’s original account: She’d described her assailants as short and skinny. Adams was 5 foot 11 and 180 pounds. Sutton was three inches taller and 25 pounds heavier, the captain of his high-school football team. The DNA evidence was harder to refute. Having seen enough prime-time TV to believe that a DNA test would vindicate them, Sutton and Adams had agreed, while in custody, to provide the police with blood samples Reality is that DNA evidence overrides actual evidence time and time again, and people are wrongfully sent to jail, have their lives ruined, and even die, because of it. The same thing will happen with facial recognition, gait, etc.