Is DNA fingerprinting OK?

Monthly topics for discussion

Moderator: TalkingPoint

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:21 pm
Status: English Teacher

Is DNA fingerprinting OK?

Post by TalkingPoint » Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:22 pm

Is DNA fingerprinting OK? Should courts accept forensic evidence based on DNA fingerprinting? Should courts convict suspected criminals on evidence based on genetic fingerprinting alone?

English Checker
forensic: relating to the use of science to investigate crimes
evidence: information that can prove someone guilty or innocent
DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid, a substance in living organisms that carries genetic information
DNA fingerprinting: (also genetic fingerprinting, genetic profiling) the use of DNA from samples of body tissues or fluids to identify people
Last edited by TalkingPoint on Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:55 am, edited 5 times in total.

Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:37 pm

Post by Mandy2 » Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:27 am

From my point of view, some reasons for the use of DNA fingerprinting are:

the possibility to analyze small amounts of forensic material
many years after a criminal incident. The physical stability of DNA is an advantage.

DNA testing uses many more variables. That's positive because it strengthens the significance of a match between samples.

The use of DNA evidence might minimize the risk of wrongful convictions which has been brought up in studies before and help to reverse previous wrong convictions.

But all that doesn't mean that DNA testing is infallible. Heat, rain, bacteria or other environmental factors at a crime scene can influence the genetic material.

Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:30 am

Post by ddai130 » Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:49 am

DNA fingerprinting is an advanced technology be wildly used in conviction of someone commited a case mostly had happend for years . In a situation unable to find out enough other material or witness .and by now it is the most advanced and had been proved as the most reliable technology , But it doesnot means there is no exception for all the situation (although the possibility of the error is very very small ). To be safer of a right judgement , Other evidence should be required along with the DNA report .

Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:50 am

Post by vivian_1987 » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:29 pm

I think DNA fingerprinting is okay. This new method is used to find whether the DNA of one person matches with that that found at places of crime. It can also be used to find out our parentage. I think this is a very useful biological method and i think courts should accept the evidence based on DNA fingerprinting. However, i don't think courts can convict suspects based on this evidence alone, this is because DNA sequence has already been dscovered by scientists and it is possible for people to replicate DNA, therefore, evidence based on DNA fingerprints is not enough. Although there are many benefits of this scientifical method, there are also drawbacks, that is someday everyone will have his or her DNA sequence revealed. Who can have the authority to know other's DNA sequence? Who has the authority to make use of this confidential information?

Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:02 am

It depends on the case...

Post by sky888walker » Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:47 am

All depends on the case:.........

If someone steals a chicken, can he/she be convicted guilty based on DNA fingerprint ?? Who is DNA ?? His/her DNA ?? or chicken's DNA ??

If someone kills others with gun, can he/she be convicted guilty based DNA fingerprint only ?? Who's DNA ?? Him/her ?? what basis ??

DNA fingerprint can only be applied on certain cases. Not all cases. On those certain cases, the answers are yes. DNA is most powerful evidence. No doubt.

Case close... next case, please.. lol
A simple answer using simple words from a simple and humble man

User avatar

Re: It depends on the case...

Post by Guest » Thu Apr 14, 2005 6:18 pm

sky888walker wrote:All depends on the case:.........

If someone steals a chicken, can he/she be convicted guilty based on DNA fingerprint ?? Who is DNA ?? His/her DNA ?? or chicken's DNA ??
Image I never thought we needed to have DNA fingerprinting for a case such as stealing a chicken. If I were the judge, I would sentence those who needed DNA fingerprinting for stealing chicken's case. "You're wasting my time with that darn chicken? How dare you." LOL... :lol: And my solution would be, "You and you, each give me five bucks. Two chicks are two bucks and the grown chicken is 3 bucks. Each of you will get a chick. The one who claims that he has lost his chicken will get a grown chicken. Case's closed. Now get out of my face" :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Top Contributor
Top Contributor
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:40 am

DNA Fingerprinting!

Post by Shazzam » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:30 am

I agree that is a great tool in serious cases (murder, rape). I would definately want more than this (evidence) if I was a judge though. But i must admit it can prove crutial in some cases. A very sticky questions I suppose in regards to privacy etc. But if you are innocent then no problem. We just have to hope that the tests are accurate too!

Scarry isn't it. Even scientists make mistakes!

User avatar

Re: DNA Fingerprinting!

Post by Guest » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:53 am

shazzam1452 wrote: Scarry isn't it. Even scientists make mistakes!
They're people with higher IQ and that's all.

Post Reply