> Moreover, there's another bias in the DNA evidence: No one to my
> knowledge is digging up DNA evidence on earlier acquitals to expose
> murderers who got off scot free.
Double jeopardy makes this a futile exercise. Maybe double jeopardy
should be revised given this scientific breakthrough.
IIRC, earlier uses of DNA in criminal law were to bolster cases
where physical evidence was slim. Before DNA testing, you could
only match rapists to their semen by blood type, not terribly
good. DNA tests were first used to revive old rape cases where prosecuters
still had the physical evidence but no way to pin the person to
the crime - you only had a blood type match.
I think an interesting question is why isn't DNA testing mandatory
for cases where it is appropriate It's a stronger peice of evidence
than just about anything else. I know one person was concerned about
evidence contamination, but I don't know if it's worse than
the alternatives. People can get convicted on the flimsiest
of evidence, especially in cases where the accused can't afford
agood lawyer. I'd take my chance with DNA over human witnesses
any day.
-fabio
