3 ms·
essentially kills DNA evidence's usefulness Could you elaborate? What kind of (valid) use does DNA evidence has that is disproved by bayesian reasoning?
by Anderkent 14y ago
essentially kills DNA evidence's usefulness
Could you elaborate? What kind of (valid) use does DNA evidence has that is disproved by bayesian reasoning?
- gizmo 14y agoExample DNA useful: Cops find criminal's blood at crime scene. Cops track down murder suspect using security video. Find suspect. Take DNA sample. Sample matches DNA at crime scene. DNA proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt 1:1000000. Example DNA not useful: Cops find suspect's blood at crime scene. Cops peek in DNA database and find 3 people in the region with matching DNA. One of them sort of looks like the shadow in the security video. They arrest him, get him picked out of a lineup and say DNA matches blood at the crime scene in the trial. Cops say DNA evidence proves guilt with odds 1:1000000, but odds of innocence are the complete opposite and closer to, say, 1000:1.
- Anderkent 14y agoRight. I didn't realize DNA was used to locate the suspect, thanks.
- tehwalrus 14y agogizmo says what I meant, indeed. In the UK, the police have been keeping a DNA database of everyone ever arrested for anything; they run samples through it from crime scenes. The ECHR has (I think) ruled that this is illegal, because of this sort of error, but the Home Office refuses to listen to European Courts, or indeed mathematics, when it comes to crime.