Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Only if it is set up like the national fingerprint database is. And that, my friends, has already been put into place so this is a moot question.
It is set up like the national fingerprint database. There are over 9 million DNA records on file with the FBI. The main problem with BOTH the fingerprint and DNA databases is that the information is often kept on file even if someone is acquitted of the suspected crimes, or perhaps even never charged with them.
DNA is also far more useful than fingerprints for convictions, or to prove innocence, and it applies to often more severe criminal cases (murder or rape will more likely rely on DNA instead of property theft or vandalism). So it's hardly a moot question.
In replying to my statement, you said;
"It is set up like the national fingerprint database."
Which is, I am afraid to say, reiterating what I actually already have said;
"And that, my friends, has already been put into place so this is a moot question."
Also, in a homicide case where the assailant never touches the victim, DNA would never be present unless the murder weapon is found dry and undisturbed. Water washes away fingerprints as well as the DNA associated with them. That is why a semi-intelligent killer usually tries to dispose of his murder weapon in a lake or river.
To date, more people have been proven innocent (after they have served time for a crime they did not commit) by DNA evidence than those convicted with DNA evidence. Most were convicted due to erroneous eyewitness identification than from bad police work.
The point was to indicate that there is a problem with both in the way they are set up, not to argue yours. You ignored that problem in your reply.
In a homicide case, DNA can still be useful to show the suspect was at a crime scene, to prove other facts about the case. Besides, as you indicated, getting rid of fingerprints is just as useful when a murder weapon is involved (that isn't say, a knife or slashing weapon with blood and tissue on it). More often what you'd be dealing with for DNA as a result is not the murder weapon but disposing of clothing or shoes or even vehicles used in the deed.
I have no quarrel with it being used to exonerate people. But while it often is used for such things it is not used aggressively for such things, certainly not to the extent it can be pursued to convict by the state, and particularly once a conviction has been obtained it is rarely used. Once convicted there's usually a huge legal battle to get DNA evidence admitted and tested during appeals. It is not as simple as you make it sound by showing how "common" it is for innocence.
Bad eyewitnesses are often tainted because of bad police work by the way. That's not uncommon either. The more common problem is probably neither of these two, but rather bad prosecutor behavior.