DNA Evidence Raises Concerns
Increasing Trust in DNA Testing May Create False Sense of Security
Aug 20, 2008
In Akron, Ohio a man wrongly accused of rape was freed when DNA evidence obtained from a confiscated cigarette proved that another man had committed the crime. This news goes down with many others as another example of DNA evidence exhonerating wrongly accused prisoners. While many civil rights activists see law enforcement obtaining and filing this genetic information as a potential violation of privacy, others worry over the evidence for different reasons.
Dangers Associated with the Perceptions of Evidence
Recently, Michael Pierce, the vice president for the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties advised that courts should be cautious in relying on DNA evidence stating: "The problem with DNA is that if you get a match the evidence is so strong and compelling it almost guarantees conviction."
The idea that concerns many litigators is that juries may begin to perceive that when DNA evidence is introduced into a court case it will encourage these men and women to ignore everything else presented. While DNA evidence has helped to better assure innocence or guilt in many cases, there is no evidence that should be perceived as the absolute truth. Litigators go to lengths to establish their own contexts into which each piece of evidence is explained and, like any evidence, its placement and purpose in the crime is something only the victim or perpetrator will ever know beyond a reasonable doubt.
Relying on Evidence a Consistent Fear as the Science of Detection Evolves
Concerns of evidence biasing juries is not a new concern in courtrooms. Whenever science uncovers a new way for detectives to approach crimes the new technology is often perceived as more incriminating than established methodology or evidence. Examples include items such as the polygraph or "lie detector." Oftentimes when a person submits to a polygraph and the results are found to be either inconclusive or detecting deception many assume this indicates guilt. However, the biological processes that the polygraph examines allow for errors not always associated with guilt. This is why polygraphs are inadmissable in courts unless ordered by a judge; they create a false sense of truth that can greatly damage juries ability to weight both sides of an issue.
The fears that DNA evidence can constitute a courtroom bias are legitimate and real. However, as detective sciences evolve U.S. courts will be faced with many more examples of the "awe" of science. What men like Mr. Pierce argue for is simply a realization of science's effect on our judgement.
