Ok this only works if u look at it my way (i need smart people)?

the quesion is Do you think DNA evidence is enough to convict a person of a crime? Give two reasons to support your opinion. (7 pts)





im looking for a word that desirebes what im trying to say .what i want to say might not make cents to my teacher .. my mom didnt even understand





no i do not. DNA evidence is every _______ to who ever looks at it





ok heres y to a lawyer or a csi, a person accused of a crime needs a motide to hold in court. so they look for evidence to which the person being accused. but for like the person with less of a motide any evidence becomes subjectf ..





help meOk this only works if u look at it my way (i need smart people)?
ok, i think you were trying to say that DNA evidence is very subjective and interpretation of such evidence is strongly subject to bias if taken out of context. And that DNA evidence should only be used to convict a person of a crime in conjunction with evidence such as motive and opportunity as the mere presence of a person's DNA may not necessarily be an indication of their guilt.





is that what you were trying to say?Ok this only works if u look at it my way (i need smart people)?
OK, to start...your words.


desirebes - describes


motide - motive





Next, your statement


';DNA evidence is every _______ to who ever looks at it.';


That doesn't mean anything. It makes no grammatical sense. EVERY is the weird word. Every time I see poor grammar it hurts my eyes.





So are you saying that a person who is guilty by evidence but not by motive is innocent?
well, i would say that DNA evidence isnt strong enough, Becuase, ppl can always just plant someone elses DNA. like, u can steal someones glove, and then kill someone, then place the glove at the scene of the crime. Then the person whos glove got stolen is now screwed. So they should match time frames along with the


DNA.





and i dont knnow abou that word.
i think you're trying to say ';subjective'; but dna evidence is objective. it's raw scientific data that you really can't fabricate.





also, you should work on your spelling. your teacher will probably deduct more points from that than your actual answer.
Hon, your science teacher is not the only one that cannot make sense of this. You can't hope to write an understandable opinion without spelling correctly and using complete sentences that list examples to support your ideas.
well... human dna gets influnced through 50% genome which is due to heredity and 50% due to interaction through environment.. so to some extent dna links to crimes if it is a too much of hereditary factor!
I get what you're trying to say.





Here is some info that may help you answer your question





DNA evidence alone is not enough evidence to convict a person of a crime.





Your DNA is like a chemical finger print. Each persons DNA is specific to them and no one else (unless they have an identical twin).





Things that matter in court are things like how the DNA from the crime scene was collected. Crime scenes can be anywhere but are commonly in places where people live or work.





There is lots of DNA from many different people all over crime scenes so it's important that investigators collect the evidence carefully. They must be sure that other sources are not contaminating the evidence.





There could also be extenuating circumstances as to why a particular persons DNA is found in a crime scene that have nothing to do with the crime itself.





These reasons don't make DNA alone enough to convict a person of a crime.