Here's a new one: a serial rapist is about to stand trial in an unusual case in which
his DNA was charged with the crimes before its owner had been identified (a strategy that has been tried in other jurisdictions since this case was brought in 1991). In part this was a way around the statute of limitations, once investigators realized that so many cases were linked.
When he filed the case, Kaufman said, he had to persuade a judge that a DNA profile of a rape suspect was a more specific identifier than a person's name and date of birth -- the standard identifiers listed on most criminal complaints.
They got lucky when he turned up on different charges and the match was made...
(via How Appealing)
2 comments:
Not meant to be taken as a criticism of the prosecution strategy or the judicial rulings involved, but the acceptance of DNA as personal identification does signify how far the pendulum has swung in favor of the "nature" rather than "nurture" understanding of the human personality.
I don't see that they're commenting on the source of personality at all. This is just a way to identify a single physical individual -- as their name and address might be, or their fingerprints and description. The DNA can be exactly matched to a person (or twins), and by its source (i.e., the crime scene) it can be matched to a crime, but nobody says that the DNA *caused* the crime anymore than the fingerprints would have...
Post a Comment