4 ms·
I agree. I believe this article is to be a “tug your heartstrings” to be against the very logical restriction on forensic DNA analysis by “reconstructing a reve
by TheJoeMan 5y ago
I agree. I believe this article is to be a “tug your heartstrings” to be against the very logical restriction on forensic DNA analysis by “reconstructing a reverse family tree” which is quite often wrong.
- version_five 5y agoYeah, what caught my attention was the casual > although new state legislation restricting forensic genealogy could complicate matters as if affording important privacy protections is a "complication" that interferes with their goal of a safer world. Much of the article reads like a thinly veiled lobbying piece for why police should be less restricted in how they use this technique.
- LorenPechtel 5y agoWhile it can be wrong the cost of a wrong is minor--they test the DNA, it doesn't match, they continue their search, now perhaps with better information as to how the tree fits together.
- geoduck14 5y ago> While it can be wrong the cost of a wrong is minor NO. NO NO NO. The cost is VERY much NOT MINOR. In the 80s and 90s, DNA was over used and it was incorrectly used to put the wrong people in prison for a very long time. The cost of mistakes is NOT trivial.