2007-07-19 17:19:34 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Probably not, firstly because DNA evidence only proves that the accused was present at the crime scene but not necessary that he/she committed the crime nor the time of his/her presence.
Secondly, DNA evidence could be planted as well. The real criminal could easily put someone else's hair or blood sample at the scene of crime.
2007-07-19 17:29:14 · answer #1 · answered by Southpaw 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes,
A DNA match identifies the specific person down to a degree that is higher than the population of the area. For example an exact DNA match means that it belongs to only one our of 100 billion which is larger than the number of people on the planet. Therefore the exact match means "without a shadow of doubt" the person is guilty.
DNA is objective, it doesn't have a point of view, an opinion or an agenda. It is objective and can be scientifically explained and the results are reproducible. In most criminal cases where DNA is involved the DNA lab is required to provide two DNA samples one for the crime lab to test and one for the defense to test. Rarely is this done though because the results of a DNA test are exact.
2007-07-19 17:28:03 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No
1. It only proves that your DNA was at the scene. Doesn't prove you were actually there.
2. In very few cases, DNA can be the same as an identical twin.
The OJ case is the best example as someone else has already attributed to.
2007-07-19 18:13:31 · answer #3 · answered by Trevin M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because DNA establishes a direct link with very high probability.
No, because the evidence could be contaminated or a person framed.
2007-07-19 17:38:10 · answer #4 · answered by ideaquest 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DNA material can be planted just as any other kind of evidence. Convition requires more than that, especially if we are dealing with death penality. Too many cases of innocent people executed should make people think.
2007-07-19 17:27:29 · answer #5 · answered by Fast Eddie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think it is fair because some one could frame you by applying your hair or something to the room and you could be convicted of the crime. i don't know about a second reason but that's one if that helps
2007-07-19 17:26:30 · answer #6 · answered by Tianna 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hi. No. OJ was not convicted. Others have been cleared.
2007-07-19 17:25:46 · answer #7 · answered by Cirric 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋