I recently saw a show on TV in which two women were found to have different DNA from their biological children. Further testing resulted in the discovery that each woman carried two sets of DNA.
Given that news, is it possible to prove anyone not guilty using DNA evidence?
2006-08-06 09:50:14 · 3 answers · asked by grapeshenry 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Sorry, the sentence should have read "prove that someone is not guilty". By that I refer to The Innocence Project which relies heavily on new DNA evidence to try for new trials.
2006-08-06 09:59:27 · update #1
By the way, I am not asking about American criminal justice system. This question is for people of all countries.
2006-08-06 10:05:29 · update #2
Noboby read the question and details carefully....
2006-08-07 15:25:20 · update #3
Even without addressing the issue of the reliability of the DNA evidence, your question shows that you do not understand the American criminal justice system. We never prove someone not guilty. We prove them guilty. If you cannot prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are innocent.
If DNA evidence can even make it possible that someone didn't do a crime, that is enough to find them innocent. If you look at the facts and have a doubt, they are innocent.
2006-08-06 09:54:11 · answer #1 · answered by Charles D 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
DNA evidence is only admissable as corraborating evidence in a trial. DNA matching only compares certain strands of a DNA string which leaves a small probabity of a false positive match. I read somewhere that the likelihood of someone having a similar DNA match was approximately 1 in a 1000. That's far too high of a number to consider DNA as condemning evidence.
It can be used to overturn a guilty verdict though. In 2000, Illinois governor George Ryan suspended all executions because of the number of death row inmates who were found to be innocent of their crime for which they were convicted.
http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1231b-1.html
2006-08-06 10:15:10 · answer #2 · answered by Kookiemon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DNA is only as reliable as the person collecting it and the persons testing it. If they are not reliable, careful, competent, or ethical, it can be deemed unreliable. This is why they should have a double or triple blind test. If all of the test results are not identical, then it should not be allowed in as evidence to convict someone.
2006-08-06 10:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. PhD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋