How can people be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt when DNA tests, although available have not been done.?

Question

Lets assume that the testing is appropriate and the suspect faces the death penalty.

NO, I said lets assume that the testing IS appropriate. I.E it would not be appropriate if the incident was witnessed by 100 people.

Answer 1

Because guilty beyond reasonable doubt is completely subjective.

Answer 2

your argument holds that the sole premise for conviction is the DNA test itself. if the court can show, means, motive, opportunity and can corroborate with testimony, ballistics, forensics(and not just DNA) then the need for DNA testing seems superfluous. how much more credence do you need to add to a well presented, logical, systematic case presented in an orderly, meticulous manner with all protocols re Miranda and due process in place. i think a person who is found "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt" is just that! - because the case is airtight- through a combination of many factors- the DNA test may be the final nail in the coffin but it shouldn't be the foundation of the case per se- good detective work and adherence to procedure win out in the day- thus the saying "the long arm of the law"

Answer 3

You shoot someone dead in front of 100 witnesses. No DNA testing required - you are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Answer 4

certain evidence--is clear to convict,
dna is not necessary in each case.