Is DNA evidence alone enough to acquit (innocent) or convict (guilty)?

Question

Is DNA evidence alone enough to acquit (innocent) or convict (guilty)?

Answer 1

In some cases, yes. If your DNA is at the scene, you were there. Did you kill/ rape the person? Still unknown. Could have been a different person who came later to kill the person, could have been consensual.
And if your DNA is not there that doesn't mean you didn't do it. If they couldn't find a sample or a large enough sample of DNA to test, or could only find DNA from your co-criminal.... haha.
But yes, DNA evidence is completely unique to you and only you. And your identical twin. =)

Answer 2

I'll say only this: if the country you live in does see criminal cases decided exclusively by DNA evidence then your legal system is buggered and you should leave, and quickly...

DNA evidence is just one arrow in the prosecution's bow, they should need at least other forensic evidence and strong circumstantial evidence to secure a conviction (or even a trial!)

EDIT: There is a good reason DNA evidence alone should not be enough to secure a conviction: all you can tell conclusively from DNA evidence is that a person matching that DNA profile was at the scene at the time. Usually if the DNA is actually on the victim (skin under the fingernails, semen, etc) there will be other forensic evidence linking the DNA to the victim and hence the crime to the suspect - but even that should not be enough to secure a conviction as the evidence is still subject to interpretation; contrary to the post below this one, any evidence given by witnesses is of massive importance - as for inaccuracies, it is up to the wit of the prosecution and defense counsels to expose poor evidence and expose the core facts, and therefore supply the jury with enough facts to properly consider the case (DNA evidence is one of many facts to be considered).

Answer 3

If you are a radioligist science buff, you know that the deed
differentiatives is there are divergent open potencies. A DNA
sample will show the likelihood of some contact although in
the paranormal phenomenom at the end of the year, 73% of
the accusers are found to be recalcitrant. The act of murder,
robbery, any grand jury level crime that warrants the use of
evidence would have followed Jersa and Campbal finding in
circuit 1 that no case forwarded to the prosider will be held.
The lower status of crime figures is not likely to reach real
courts.

Answer 4

It should be!

I mean eyewitness testimony has been shown TIME AND TIME again to be inaccurate, and it is STILL depended on quite a bit.

Whereas DNA evidence, provided it comes from a good lab etc... and it wasn't planted at the scene, has been shown TIME AND TIME again to be the most accurate evidence we can have. It doesn't lie, it doesn't get confused, and it has no axe to grind with anyone. Plus since we all are genetically different (with the possible exception of identical twins) it is better and more accurate than fingerprinting even.

Answer 5

Yes, because if you can link DNA of prime suspects to key items in cases, then the suspect would be accquited or guilty.

Answer 6

most of the times yes, because every person has a unique DNA the only exception are twins

Answer 7

yes, because DNA is unique ot each individual.

Answer 8

usually

Answer 9

absolutely..