DNA Evidence an Important Part of Crime Solving Today

The amount and types of evidence needed to convict a suspect varies in courts from country to country around the world. DNA evidence, an important part of crime solving today, is also used and interpreted differently in the court systems of all countries. According to “Issues in Gathering, Interpreting, and Delivering DNA Evidence” by Judge Andrew Haesler, in countries such as New South Wales and both North and South Australia DNA evidence alone cannot determine guilt, but in the courts of Scotland and England there are no laws preventing conviction based on DNA evidence alone. Surprisingly, even the United States courts have rejected the idea that DNA evidence alone cannot convict (Haesler 5). This may be due to a jury’s reliance on scientific evidence, causing them to be willing to convict when DNA evidence is presented, but unwilling to convict in the absence of DNA evidence. This is known as the ‘CSI Effect.’ Juries in US courts also tend to expect DNA evidence in certain crimes, even when it is not relevant, and when it is presented it is often inaccurately used and interpreted when trying to convict a suspect (Shelton 1). Not only can DNA evidence be presented and interpreted wrongly, it can also be inaccurate due to the delicate nature of DNA and the tedious processes conducted to identify it. These inaccuracies lead to wrong convictions, sending innocent suspects to jail or even a death sentence. Often, cases like these are reopened later, and only then do courts realize they convicted the wrong suspect. Cases like these make one wonder why courts would not have the common sense to use DNA evidence to make a conviction only when other evidence is present to support it. Wrong accusations could be prevented worldwide if DNA...

... middle of paper ...

...case is based only on this piece of evidence that has the possibility of a lab mistake, the chance of an error should be taken into account. It should also be recognized because the simple solution to wrong convictions based on one piece of possibly inaccurate evidence is to stop making convictions based only on DNA evidence. As stated by Judge Andrew Haesler, “As judges, lawyers, experts and potential jurors, we want evidence and results that make our already difficult jobs easier. We would love so expert to ease the burden of our judgement by saying, ‘This is the answer.’” (Haesler 9). However, as DNA technology stands today, it is not perfect, nor will it ever be. DNA evidence can never be a certain way to convict a suspect, it can only be used as support to convict a suspect along with other relevant evidence. DNA evidence alone does not suffice for conviction.