3 ms·
DNA evidence alone would not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. If DNA 'positive match' wasn't already being abused as evidence then this would have little
by dade_ 7y ago
DNA evidence alone would not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt. If DNA 'positive match' wasn't already being abused as evidence then this would have little impact. DNA should only be used to prove someone is innocent (DNA doesn't match) or support other evidence they are guilty. There are also actual instances of problematic matches noted in the article as well.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wespiser_2018 7y agoYea, but there is definitely a gradient or propensity of evidence that is often lost. For instance, touch transfer DNA can deposit your DNA on a crime scene if you interacted with the EMTs earlier in the day (Anderson case, 2012) [1] which means very little, but if a suspect's fingerprint is in the victim's blood, it's very likely the suspect was present during an attack. In the later case, I think DNA evidence, the victim's in the case, would be evidence of guilt, but needs to be part of a larger, coherent case. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/marinamedvin/2018/09/20/framed-by-your-own-cells-how-dna-evidence-imprisons-the-innocent/#101a7f0e4b86 https://www.forbes.com/sites/marinamedvin/2018/09/20/framed-...