DNA serves well

There is not much to say. I agree with the author. Prosecutors shouldn't block the opportunities to do a DNA test. What is more reliable than this? In fact, it shouldn't even be the prisoner's choice. DNA testing would reduce significantly the margin of error, and ensure that the right people are getting convicted.

Besides, another benefit of the DNA testing is that they could find other potential suspects or criminals. Why wouldn't they want to do this? Why would you eat bad food, instead of your favorite food? (assuming that both of them are equally healthy and cost the same?) Why would you want to be counterproductive?

Maybe the tests are expensive but if you ask the average American, as to whether they would like more natural parks, or a safer country, they'd probably choose the second one. Well, maybe they would even choose the first one. But if it were up to me, I'd choose to spend more of my tax money onto safety. After all, who wants a bunch of criminals around their kids? Free! And, who wants to see innocents convicted for lifetime? Talking about justice there. It is all a matter of reasoning, and progress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue2.html?_r=1