In light of recent news events in Victoria it may be incorrect to consider DNA evidence as a "proof absolute" or a "for ever and ever amen solution", to the problem of solving serious crime.

In fact it's fair to suggest that it is possible that not only contamination of DNA evidence may have caused persons to have been falsely convicted, but that it is also possible that persons in control of DNA evidence in Victoria have held responsibility beyond their capacity to administer.

Judges, juries, and other legal people may have placed undue faith in the credibility of such evidence, leading to unjust convictions; alternately the aftermath may see others guilty of crimes walk free.

My question is, (a) " Should it be possible? " and/or, (b) is it actually possible that a person can be convicted on DNA evidence alone in Victoria ?.

DNA evidence is more useful than not. People will ALWAYS get wrongfully convicted, it's just the nature of the beast. Just pray it isn't you.

Should people be convicted on eyewitness accounts alone too?. Because everyone sees the same thing differently. A brown car is always and dark green, burgundy, and black. A '3' on a number plate can be an 8, as well. etc etc.

All we can do is hope that everyone is doing their job correctly while they're looking at the evidence against you.

DNA evidence is usually pretty damning, but overall it is a combination of factors in evidence that make a case or not. And the quality of a Defence Lawyer to make a case should there be any doubt about any aspect of evidence.

DNA is only as good as the humans that administer the chain of evidence, but that is like most things. If there are no good systems of accountability or checks and balances then abuses of power or undetected human error will be more common.

Without direct experience it would be impossible to say how often this happens in Victoria, or indeed elsewhere.

Governments and people should seek to ensure those checks and balances are in place as part of the overall system of justice.

Thinker2
The problem as I understand it is/was with the control/security of the 'chain of evidence'.
That has more to do with the *procedures for handling the evidence, not the DNA science as such.

Absolutely agree examinator and I do understand the science is valid and useful but as you point out the problem was the control/security of the chain of evidence.

How frequently this sort of problem occurs is the issue. Evidence in law (not just DNA) but all evidence and how it is handled is critical to a just outcome.

Frequency of injustice through legal process probably equates directly to how close we are to living in a police state wherever we may live.

Thanks Pelican and StG for yours thoughts, definitely agree pelican and I'll pray for my children and their children as well StG cheers thinker 2

How about this:

James Bain was released from jail today after.... 35 years.... for a crime he had not committed.

DNA evidence proved his innocence.

http://www.merinews.com/article/innocent-james-bain-released-after-spending-35-years/15791563.shtml

35 years for f^cks sake!