DNA evidence banned from Victorian court cases

DNA evidence banned from Victorian court cases

[url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/dna-evidence-banned-from-victorian-court-cases/story-e6frf7jx-1225808697503]www.heraldsun.com.au[/ url]

VICTORIA'S top police officer has ordered his forensic scientists to stop using DNA evidence in court cases.

The Herald Sun reports chief commissioner Simon Overland today said discrepancies between technological advances and their mathematical interpretation had meant the system needed to be reviewed.

The decision meant forensic officers would not submit DNA evidence or statements before the courts took their Christmas break.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-12-2009 by tezzajw]

This is interesting and shows that DNA isn't as reliable as it might seem.

While I can see that DNA is useful for identifying possible suspects and eliminating possible suspects, it doesn't seem that it should always be used for absolute proof. The possibility of contaminated DNA from a crime scene is very real and can imply guilt for no reason.

The article mentions a recent appeal that was upheld, with a person being freed from jail, after being found guilty of rape. He's seeking $1M dollars compensation, which to me is a bargain for having lost a year and a half of your life!

Here's the link to his article:
www.theaustralian.com.au...

As far as I am concerned, if TPTB want to lock anyone up, then they must conclusively show beyond reasonable doubt that they are justified in doing so.

[url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/dna-evidence-banned-from-victorian-court-cases/story-e6frf7jx-1225808697503]www.heraldsun.com.au[/ url]
(visit the link for the full news article)

EDIT: Don't ask me why the link to the story isn't working?

[edit on 9-12-2009 by tezzajw]

I always thought that DNA and all the other biometric crap was a tool for government to tag you, label you and brand you on their databases..

I wonder how reliable it really is in court..

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I always thought that DNA and all the other biometric crap was a tool for government to tag you, label you and brand you on their databases..

I wonder how reliable it really is in court..

Apparently not very. The things we see on shows like CSI are way beyond the norm of anything labs do. This article should concern us as DNA used as evidence may not be the magic bullet we need to put away the bad guys 100% of the time.

I've always been just a little skeptical about DNA evidence.

Think about it:

DNA can identify you from 1 in a billion people. This sounds very accurate until you consider the fact that there are 6.5 billion people on the earth, so statistically, there are 6 other people on the planet who could be a match. Now I doubt very much, as a white European, that my DNA is going to be a match for an Asian or African and it is much more likely that the matches are going to be geographically within my vacinity and be some distant relative I don't even know about.

Any thoughts about this, or am I just over simplifying this?