"Postconviction DNA Testing Should Be Encouraged"

      In the essay "Postconviction DNA Testing Should Be Encouraged", Tim O' Brian presents the issue over using DNA evidence. In his example a defendant; Larry Youngblood was being "convicted of abducting a 10-year-old boy from a church carnival and repeatedly sodomizing him" (526). After being found guilty Youngblood still claimed that he was innocent and DNA would help him show it. O'Brian argues that DNA evidence is the only credible evidence. Unlike the rest that a lawyer can present, it is not biast. Although Youngblood fit the description and the traumatized boy pointed him out in front of the jury, the DNA showed that is was not Youngblood who committed this crime. O'Brian explains the DNA could be the determining variable for someone who is facing a death or life sentence. Mistaken identity occurs more often than people realize and DNA is the only factor that can help protect a person.
      I thought O'Brian made a really interesting argument for DNA testing. I think I agree with him. It always comes down to the evidence to show whether or not a person is guilty. However in the case of Youngblood you can argue that the boy was so traumatized he picked someone that looked similar to his abductor. Technology is something that is praised now, so I think people should start getting used to technology becoming a defining factor. You can't take everyone's word so I think that DNA testing should be encouraged.