Pros And Cons

"There are quite a few "cons" for DNA fingerprinting. Plenty more than there are "pros". DNA is the make-up of one's body, and whether its fair to keep little evidence on file has been debated."

  • DNA testing is less intrsive than taking a blood sample.
  • When used correctly and combined with the use of other forensic tools and evidence, the number of innocent convictions can be decreased. Rob Weeks wrote an article saying, “An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice.”
  • The correct use of DNA profiling can contribute to ruling out clear non-matches in paternity cases and crimes in which DNA evidence is present. This can be instrumental to those who are wrongly or falsely accused.


  • Some evaluate any request for a DNA sample to be a violation of a person's right to privacy and a violation of their civil liberties.
  • Some real concerns about DNA collection and profiling include the access others would have to it and what they would do with it. Health insurers could possibly use it to deny coverage or claims. Prospective employers could not hire those who have certain genetic traits or risks for certain diseases. Public humiliation could follow with the public release of ‘embarrassing’ genetic findings like in the case of hermaphrodites and adults whom chose to have gender reassignment surgery.
  • While the correct use of DNA can be contributed in reducing and reversing innocent convictions, incorrect use of it and the sway of it over other evidence on juries and judges can produce a system of innocent convictions. Errors can be made and individuals conducting the tests, possibly, could be convinced through criminal means to produce the desired outcomes. All of these problems make DNA profiling a tool with under One Hundred percent accuracy.