Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LL
I am flabbergasted !!! The earth must have changed it's direction of rotation.
Today, I agreed with US Supreme Court Judge Anthonin Scalia
|
My response precisely.
When I recovered consciousness, I pondered these two questions:
What will be done with the DNA sample taken from a person under arrest, but who is later released? Will that sample and the name, rank and serial number of the person from whom it was taken be added to the database, along with <NULL> as the entry for crimes committed?
A fingerprint is fairly reliable evidence that the person to whom the print belongs was actually present where the fingerprint was found. DNA is vastly more transportable than a fingerprint. I'm not challenging the validity of DNA/fingerprint evidence, that's a thread's worth all by itself. I'm saying "planting" a fingerprint is very difficult, but "planting" DNA seems trivial. I wonder what finding dna at a crime scene will imply, regardless if it matches the sample taken from a person under arrest. (Now that I think about it, this question has little to do with the recent SCOTUS decision.) I think there are some situations that are pretty unambiguous, like DNA from semen in a vagina. But the advances in technology make getting a legitimate reading from smaller and smaller samples will continue. I heard today that it's possible in some cases to get a DNA reading from a fingerprint. Wow.