"Postconviction DNA Testing Should Not Be Encouraged"

      In the essay "Postconviction DNA Testing Should Not Be Encouraged", Peter Roff argues that "the absence of a particular individuals DNA at a crime scene is not alone proof of their innocence" (532). Although DNA evidence can help win a case it should not be the determining factor. Roff argues that all of the evidence must be considered not only DNA evidence, just because none may be present doesn't prove that the accused didn't have a motive (532). Roff also talks about how evidence can be so old that no matter how great the technology it does not justify being able to take old evidence and examining it for DNA. Once a person is sentenced that should be it. There may not be any DNA present at a crime scene but eyewitness testamounts are very important and should not be dismissed or taken lightly.
      I thought Roff made some good points in his arguments, I just don't think that it was enough to make it a strong argument. I felt like it was missing a lot and that a real example of how DNA does not convict someone of a crime could have been used. I personally disagree with him. Although you should take a motive and eyewitness testamounts into consideration, sometimes it really comes down to the evidence and DNA helps determine that the right person is charged.