Although there isn't always a definite answer on who did the crime, DNA technology has evolved and is a great tool to provide evidence for a case. With that said, DNA alone is not enough to find a suspect guilty or not guilty. DNA is evidence used to determine who committed the crime, how they committed the crime, or if they are innocent. In 1999, in Australia, a girl was raped, and named Frank Button as the criminal who committed the crime. The sheets and pillowcases from where the assault took place were sent to the laboratory, but not tested. Regardless, he was found guilty and sentenced to seven years in prison. He appealed, and the sheets were tested. The DNA did not match that of Button, but of a convicted felon. The Queensland Court of Appeals remarked then that "DNA testing should not only be used to identify a perpetrator of a crime but also to exclude suspects from an investigation (Taupin, 2017). Even though DNA can help prove someone's
…show more content…
DNA inputting introduces two important matters for judges. First the judge must decide if the DNA is admissible and then the jurors must understand the proper requirement for "weighing" evidence (National Research Council). There are two principles on which DNA is decided for as admissible or not. First the Frye test and the other is "helpfulness." The Frye test came about from the case Frye v. United States. In 1923, the defendant proposed to use the lie detector test as evidence as to clear his name as to whether or not he had killed the victim. The courts ruled that the lie detector test was inadmissible because the "scientific principles upon which the procedure was based were not sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs (US Legal)." The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in November 1989,
DNA inputting introduces two important matters for judges. First the judge must decide if the DNA is admissible and then the jurors must understand the proper requirement for "weighing" evidence (National Research Council). There are two principles on which DNA is decided for as admissible or not. First the Frye test and the other is "helpfulness." The Frye test came about from the case Frye v. United States. In 1923, the defendant proposed to use the lie detector test as evidence as to clear his name as to whether or not he had killed the victim. The courts ruled that the lie detector test was inadmissible because the "scientific principles upon which the procedure was based were not sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs (US Legal)." The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in November 1989,