Postconviction DNA Testing Should Not Be Encouraged By Peter Roff

In this essay the author, Peter Roff, explains to readers that DNA testing should not be encouraged as the sole relying piece of evidence to confim postconviction. He mentions that it is a significant part of the evidence but not all of it. Roff explains that DNA is only just part of all the evidence required to confirm somebodies conviction. He implies that to rely only on DNA testing would be inadequate. He says "The abscence of a particular individual's DNA at a a crime scene is not alone proof of their innoccence"(532). Throughout the essay he continues to refer to the notion that DNA is not the entire part of evidence, and that all the other elements of the evidence are just as acountable.

I found this essay more convincing then the previous one. I think that DNA testing should be highly considered as part of the evidence, but I dont believe its aboslutely everything. If we were to use DNA testing as the sole telling factor of a crime then our justice system would be vulnerable to mistake. We would be vulnerable to make mistakes because criminals could put other peoples DNA at a crime scene that they weren't even involved in. This would cause someone that was perhaps innoccent to be wrongly accused and convicted. It would be smarter to consider all of the telling factors of the evidence and not just one. The essay was well written and I liked how the author stemmed his arguement from the significance of DNA testing for postconviction.