squashjoe
Striker
As predicted.It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As predicted.It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.
This. They can’t keep our bank details safe never mind our dna.It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.
The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.
They don't take it from ye arse though .
The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.
Sometimes it's the forensic investigators themselves who accidentally contaminate the evidence. The guide shares the bizarre example of Adam Scott, a man wrongfully convicted of rape when his DNA was found in a genital swab. Scott's DNA was a perfect match — a one in a billion probability — and it was the only evidence used to convict him, despite Scott's claim that he was more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) away the night of the incident.
Scott spent five months in custody before the truth came out. A technician in the crime lab had reused a plastic plate that contained a sample of Scott's saliva from an unrelated "spitting incident." Phone records also corroborated Scott's claim that he was in his hometown at the time of the attack.
I get this part of it but it’s all the stuff they would need to accompany it. I’m sure it would cost too much.The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.
Justice don't come cheap.I get this part of it but it’s all the stuff they would need to accompany it. I’m sure it would cost too much.
It does because too many believe it's infallible.DNA does not prove guilt.
It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.It does because too many believe it's infallible.
But your talking about data base of mostly innocent people.Justice don't come cheap.
I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.
The "CSI effect" is strong enough that many jurors in criminal trials — and even some judges — have to be convinced that DNA found at a crime scene does not automatically mean that the person matching that DNA is guilty.
I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..
Google or apple know where most people are at most times. The state can access that information if they need it.Or maybe a tag inserted so they know where you are at all times.
It'll end up like hunger games
They should start sampling babies at birth. Through natural progression, almost everyone's DNA would be on file within 75 years. 99% of crimes solved within days as a result. No brainer
Through information that you supply. Criminals don’t do this.Google or apple know where most people are at most times. The state can access that information if they need it.
That is already a little bit intrusive...