Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Forensic Evidence

  • 12-09-2007 12:30pm
    #1
    Tom Young
    Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    With all this talk of DNA. I thought a thread on same might be interesting. It appears we are becoming more and more reliant on same, but is it fully probative, and if uncorroborated what is the position of the Irish courts on such matters?

    I've been stacking up a case review on same, but its main stream.

    The recent conference in Trinity college was useful, but I didn't make it.

    Thoughts?


Comments

  • #2
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,538 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Traces of DNA only go so far - they are highly indicative that a person was present at a place or that they had contact with a person/item. In some circumstances, DNA extracted from a sample of tissue found e.g. blood or semen could indicate that a violent/sexual act had occured.

    However, I don't think DNA evidence will ever be mandatory or at least not the norm because in many cases they simply don't find a sample that can be used (especially in rape cases). It would be highly inappropriate in many cirucmstances to allow the absence of DNA (or DNA testing) to be used as a positive point by the defence (along the lines of there is no dna evidence so there could not have been sexual intercourse).

    On the other hand, there is no way that the prosecution could base their case around DNA evidence because it can only show presence at the location, contact with a person/item or that a particular activity was engaged in. I don't think there would ever be uncorroborated DNA evidence, because at best DNA evidence is should only be used as corroboration (or in contradiction) of parole evidence.

    Taking DNA samples can be very difficult and invasive in some circumstances and in other cases it is simply too expensive and time consuming to do it (hence only the most serious offences would have DNA testing). Added to that is the human element: rape victims often don't report straight away, they shower afterwards, samples get lost/mixed up, people often try to assit or embrace murder victims, etc.

    So I think that while DNA testing is very important in the investigation stage, it will never take centre stage in criminal trials.


Advertisement