The Pros And Cons Of DNA Testing

493 Words2 Pages

Many people every year are charged with crimes they didn’t commit, whether they pleaded guilty or eye-witnesses claimed and testified in court that the defendant committed the crime. Before DNA testing in 1989, there was an error rate of 6% and now that rate has dropped tremendously because we focus less on the stories witnesses claim to be true and focus more on hard evidence. Between 1989 and 2003, there was estimated to be 340 people wrongly convicted and over the years investigators found that 4,000 people were convicted for crimes they did not commit. Even today with all the technology and resources we have to determine who committed the crime based on physical evidence, we still have many wrongful convictions still happening to this day. …show more content…

We’ve revamped our ways of tapeing these sessions, we’ve moved from tape recorders to cameras with audio files in order to capture as much evidence and details from the victims stories as possible. Even with taped interrogations and perjury laws there’s no way to force the truth out of a witness, especially if they have evil intentions. The closest we can get to the truth is through polygraphs, which can still be refused by the suspect because lie detector tests are not mandatory. People have been charged with crimes they didn't commit for a long time now. People may tell a false story, or lie under oath to favor one defendant over another. Perjury, lying under oath, has been an issue for along time. Perjury can lead to the wrong victim accused guilty for a crime they did not commit nor participate in. We can not do anything to fix the issue of lying because you can not force the truth out of someone, however, we have tried by inventing polygraphs and those don't always