another classmate and i had a debate on whether dna evidence should be used in lieu of juries, or at least before a trial even happens - to exclude suspects. the classmate was worried that the government may try to use the results in scary ways against disadvantaged minorities. (yes she said this. no, it doesn't make sense to me either.) actually, i countered, it may serve to exonerate the very people that are wrongly accused, because they fit the "profile." remember this? a white woman murders her four kids and initially claims a "black man" had abducted them. or this? a runaway bride claims that a "hispanic man" had kidnapped her.
to this day, i still don't know what she was afraid of. i'm thinking it was p.c. on acid - "hide the truth, so everyone can be in the dark" - because she was secretly afraid that minorities really are more prone to committing heinous crimes. disturbing, huh?
science. it is your friend. do not be afraid of it. and as shown above, if it is available, it can prove the truth better than any jury (or any distraught victim who might be prejudiced by police error), and the truth can set a person free. dna evidence is not subjective. juries are.