What Do You Think? – The Prosecution’s Case Against DNA
DNA evidence and analysis has helped to exonerate many who confessed to violent crimes; however, in some cases, the prosecution has begun suggesting alternative theories as to where DNA (not matching the person convicted) came from. This New York Times article covers the issue in detail, and can offer some insight into both sides of the argument. It focuses on the case of Juan Rivera, who was convicted in 1992 for raping and murdering Holly Staker, an 11 year old girl. Although Rivera confessed after intensive interrogation, DNA found on the victim did not match Rivera’s. He now claims he was simply broken down by the questioning.
What do you think about this issue? Is it right to dismiss DNA evidence that does not match the person convicted as a coincidence or accidental exposure, or is this alternative resulting in keeping innocent people in jail?
Let us know what you think in the comments below!