Might recent advances in technology, such as DNA fingerprinting, possibly supplant the role of advocacy in the fact-finding process that is today regarded as central to criminal trials? If so, how? If not, why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

One must acknowledge the important role that DNA evidence plays in the criminal justice process. It could be argued that the developments in the area of DNA have helped both the prosecution and the defense. From a prosecutor’s standpoint, the use of DNA evidence must increase the willingness of a defendant to accept a plea bargain. On the other hand, there are many individual cases that have been dismissed because DNA evidence has proved the defendants’ innocence. It is not likely, however, that DNA fingerprinting will supplant the fact-finding process. Although the science behind DNA is well established, defense attorneys might still question the collection of the evidence and the processing of the evidence. In short, even with the introduction of DNA, the system is not infallible and there must be a fact-finding process to determine the reliability and veracity of the evidence.