A Response to: "Lawyers Fight DNA Samples Gained on Sly"

The article at hand discusses the legality of obtaining DNA of crime suspects via what they leave behind in public, such as cigarette butts or drink bottles. View the original article by clicking the title of this entry.

- - - - -

What is the purpose of a court trial? The purpose is to find out whether or not someone is guilty of committing a crime, and to subsequently condemn the guilty. The article at hand discusses a method for obtaining possible evidence against a person via their DNA. When two DNA samples match, that match holds a remarkable amount of accuracy when used as evidence in a court trial. Identifying people based on DNA analysis makes fingerprint analysis-based testimonies look like bombast  (for more detail on this, see http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/3010536.html). With DNA's high level of accuracy, a DNA match in a crime is essentially treated as adamant proof of guilt, provided that there is no other explanation for the DNA's presence at the crime scene. 

The fourth amendment, regarding unwarranted searches and seizures, was created to stopthe  abuse of people in regards to their property or their privacy by the government. Obtaining DNA is a one-time action that is simple and objective, and can clearly exonerate  or condemn a person. This essentially makes DNA the "Holy Grail" in many court cases, leading to a simple guilty or not guilty ruling. 

Why not use DNA evidence at all possible times, then? DNA evidence is being fought because our judicial system is not based solely on the premise of guilty or not guilty. Rather than objectively analyzing the evidence and determining a person's guilt, modern courts involve grandiloquent lawyers lecturing juries about subjective evidence. People with better lawyers generally have a better chance of winning trials. This is not fair and equal, and makes the court more of a broadway performance than a judgement of guilt. If the police have the power to obtain DNA evidence in an unhindered manner, the court becomes a more objective arena, and the guilty can no longer swindle their innocence.

If DNA evidence from suspects can freely be obtained, then the guilty can provide nothing to defend themselves against their inevitable sentencing. Because of this, police should be allowed to freely obtain DNA evidence. DNA is objective, and is used to identify whether a suspect is guilty or not. The innocent should have nothing to hide, and the guilty should face their fate.