Compared to fifty years ago, thanks to advances in DNA testing, police forces the world over are finding convictions for more serious crimes are seriously boosted by the availability of DNA testing techniques. So what role has DNA testing come to play in the judicial system, and is this a reliable process on which to base criminal convictions?

Biologically, DNA testing is a highly accurate way of determining genetic relationships, and determining a positive identification of the source of any genetic material found at the scene of the crime. In many instances it can confirm that a suspect was present at a scene, or was found to bear the DNA of the victim, which is of course very useful, and often determining, information to help solve a crime. However, some corners have suggested that DNA testing might be too prejudicial to the accused, and have subsequently called for directions as to the nature of the evidence presented to be put forth in jury trial settings by the presiding Judge.

The main advantage of DNA testing in court cases is that it's capable of placing the accused at the scene of the crime or confirming that the accused has come into contact with a victim. Along with other strands evidence, this can prove crucial to the outcome of the case and the decision whether or not to proceed to prosecution. Combined with witness identification or other testimony, DNA evidence can raise particularly powerful questions as to the innocence or otherwise of the accused.

In courts across the world, DNA results have been used to gain valuable convictions against some of the most dangerous and violent of criminals, many of whom would otherwise have walked free. However there have been some successful appeal verdicts heard on the basis of overly prejudicial evidence. DNA results, after all, do not prove an individual committed a crime ? they can only determine the presence, positively or negatively, of genetic material, which is an important element of circumstantial evidence, but not necessarily critical to the case. Thus some high-profile individuals have claimed DNA evidence to give a potentially misleading impression to jury members, which might adversely affect a fair trial.

There is no doubt DNA testing has become more relevant in a legal context in recent years. What's more, with continuing research in the field, the methods and techniques available will continue to improve. In addition, when it comes to determining whether we're right to put such faith in genetic testing, it's best to consider that we don't have any better scientific way of determining identity. When used with other circumstantial evidence, it is generally accepted that DNA testing is particularly effective, and rightly an important inclusion in the modern criminal justice system.