2006-10-07 13:37:28 · 13 answers · asked by Chris M 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
NO, DNA is exclusionary-it can provide absolute proof that you didn't contribute the DNA sample (which doesn't mean you weren't there or weren't involved) and it can provide a percentage of probability (usually very high) that you were the person who contributed the DNA sample (which may mean you did it and may not) but it can never provide absolute proof. It is simply one more piece of evidence to be weighed with all the rest.
2006-10-10 04:19:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That appears to be the popular consensus. I just wonder what will be the opinion 20 years from now. Look what happened with finger printing. We now know fingerprints can be lifted and transferred. DNA would be even easier to transfer.Yet that was considered one of the be all and end all for "proof". Also, different states etc. have different legislation on how many matches (similar or same) identity points constitute a positive match. (for fingerprints) DNA is a relatively new science. Who knows how it can be manipulated.
2006-10-07 14:08:24 · answer #2 · answered by mld m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That depends on the jury. Thanks to shows like CSI, people want to see lots of DNA evidence before they render a verdict. However, DNA can be planted. You can take some hairs from Joe Smiths hairbrush and drop them at a crime scene. Does that mean that Joe Smith was there? No. It means that Joe Smiths hairs were there. Now, if no one put the hairs there, then that probably means that Joe Smiths head was there also.
DNA from saliva or semen is harder to plant. So, if those are your sources of DNA, than it's a pretty good bet that Joe Smith was there. Semen doesn't usually go out walking by itself.
2006-10-07 13:46:41 · answer #3 · answered by darthclown 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It merely states that the odds of someone else having the same profile are usually a million to 1. I have often wondered how do we really know that we can trust DNA. It's only as good as it's tester and is it a big scam?
2006-10-07 13:42:46 · answer #4 · answered by ?? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
jus because u have dna evidence that says that so and so commited the crime doesnt mean that they shouldnt further investigate the crime. an investigator should stake there claim off of ALL the evidence not jus 1 thing. this rule applies to and blongs 2 all things.
2006-10-07 14:00:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you consider the numbers from a global persppective - if a semen sample found inside the body of a murdered girl, which is then compared to a database sample and returns a hit of 99.97% for one previous offender, there are still over half a million men who could've left that sample.
2006-10-07 13:41:38 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not absolute. But when rules of evidence are followed, it provides more reliable evidence than eye witness testimony.
2006-10-07 13:40:46 · answer #7 · answered by imnogeniusbutt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolute proof that a person was there, but not necessarily that they committed a crime.
2006-10-07 13:39:10 · answer #8 · answered by st pete rn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can match someone to a specific sample without fail, but you don't explain what type of proof you are talking about.
2006-10-07 13:41:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Haven't watched CSI lately I take it?? But to answer your question...YES. Everyones DNA is different which is why it's an absolute!
2006-10-07 13:46:27 · answer #10 · answered by foxiegixxergurl2004 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋