DNA comparison is a very strong investigative tool. Advances in DNA technology have clearly transformed criminal investigations. New analysis of DNA collected from old crime scenes has also been effective in exonerating some death-row inmates.
Despite the many strengths of DNA evidence, DNA collection and analysis are not perfect. What are some of the drawbacks associated with DNA evidence?
Should a positive DNA match be required in order to convict someone of a capital crime? Why or why not?
How does DNA evidence compare with other forms of evidence, in terms of reliability? For instance, if the victim is absolutely sure that she has identified her attacker, but a forensic scientist says the DNA does not match, should the police still press a case against the offender identified by the victim?