iable. There is a high chance of getting either incorrect results, or fudged results because of the small room for error and the tampering that can be done. Yes there is a chance of error but results have shown that DNA is 99% accurate. Nothing is perfect and a system cannot be much more efficient than this. Tampering with evidence is not unique to DNA; evidence of any sort can be tampered with. DNA does not determine guilt, it is just evidence and even if DNA does match it does not mean that this is a definite sentence of guilt. Take the O.J. Simpson case. Massive DNA evidence was compiled that all pointed to O.J., but since there was suspicion of tampering by the L.A.P.D. he was not convicted of the crime. DNA evidence can be unreliable, but under the legal system unreliable evidence probably won (Maharaj).By weighing up the arguments for a DNA data bank it is clear that there should be a DNA data bank for all convicted criminals. Currently the existence of a DNA bank for convicted criminals is crucial to the crime fighting business. Over 30 thirty states have their own DNA databases and the FBI has a national database named Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and it includes the DNA databases of all states that currently have one. The advantage of a DNA data base is overwhelming: The instant access to information can help in the quick apprehension of a criminal, it is much easier to identify repeat offenders in order to prevent future crimes, and the data base can also effectively eliminate suspects and end false arrests. All of society greatly benefits from a DNA database of convicted criminals. No one absolutely knows how effective a DNA database will be against crime in the future, but presently it fights crime like nothing else (DOJ Release).The O.J. Simpson case opened Americas eyes to how useful DNA can be in a court case. It did not prove O.J.s guilt but it made people realize how easy it is to trace someone. ...
