2006-10-09 04:25:55 · 10 answers · asked by danyette1982 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
DNA evidence is often one of the most important pieces of evidence in a case, it is certainly invaluable as a tool in proving the identity of a suspect or person involved in the case, and in some cases this can be the very foundations of a case against an individual.
However, due to portrayal in popular media, particularly shows such as CSI, many people put to much weight on DNA evidence and are to quick to assume it is infalable.
For starters DNA evidence is not 100% accurate. A piece of DNA evidence can only show the likelihood of DNA being left by one particular person or anybody else. There can be problems with accuracy and even if the odds seem huge then there is obviously the minutest possibilty that the DNA came from another source.
Secondly, DNA evidence can only connect a piece of evidence or the scene with an individual. It can not put a time to the person being there and it can not give any indications of the actions. That information must come from elsewhere. For instance if i passed through a room and sneezed, there is a likelhood that i would leave DNA behind. Leter on a murder may be committed and DNA collected. My DNA would place me at the scene but clearly i have not commited the murder.
Therefore whilst DNA evidense is an extremely usefull peice of evidence to have in a court case, it is not the be all and end all. Those involved in the case should make sure they examine all evidence presented with equal attention and not make judgements on DNA evidence alone.
2006-10-09 05:33:04 · answer #1 · answered by tarri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to prove there case .. DNA is absolutely necessary. Alot of ppl watch CSI , an Court tv, we know that when we are on a jury ... We should be seeing some DNA Evidence.
2006-10-09 04:34:50 · answer #2 · answered by lilredhead 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel it is most important to rely on Physical evidence than a eye witnesses. Physical evidence such as DNA, Brain Mapping, may never lie.
2006-10-09 05:09:05 · answer #3 · answered by I am rock 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of this is the argument from lack of expertise lower back. "i don't understand how this might have got here approximately, hence God," maximum persons of modern scientists haven't any worry by way of fact that DNA may be the effects of standard chemical techniques. Crick became engaged on DNA over 50 years in the past. If DNA became made by using a god, why does the copying mechanism bypass incorrect so frequently? Why does undesirable copying deliver approximately beginning defects incompatible with existence so frequently? Why does it introduce deleterious mutations? you will think of that if a god made it, it may be desirable. it is a ways from desirable. It gets the interest completed, yet no one in his genuine suggestions thinks it is so desirable that purely a god might have made it.
2016-11-27 02:38:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe DNA is another false science to discredit our creator. It's not mentioned in The Bible.
2006-10-09 04:39:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it's undisputable as key evidence, then it can either make or break the case, depending on which side you sit on.
2006-10-09 04:34:32 · answer #6 · answered by odafintutuola 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is very useful and important, thank goodness for science and the way it has helped cases, current and old cases....it gets the guilty and saves the innocent.........
2006-10-09 09:37:28 · answer #7 · answered by churchonthewayseniors 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is one of the best method to get the truth.
2006-10-09 04:33:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most of the time it is absolutely necessary.
2006-10-09 04:31:25 · answer #9 · answered by Dove 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As long as it's not mine, I'm OK with it.
2006-10-09 04:33:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋