[2006alum]

I think you may have wandered onto my turf, though I don't know what your professional background is.  In any case, the article you cite is apples and oranges.

You're right, you don't know my background. I don't generally care about credentialism in internet forums, as I think facts and arguments speak for themselves. But I can assure you, mine are solid in this arena, and I'm not just astroturfing down on your turf. 

Speaking of professional backgrounds and "turf"...

What the teaching fellow (not professor) is discussing is whether DNA evidence all by itself is sufficient to convict. 

I suggest you do your research - Andrea Roth is very much a (full) professor (at UC Berkeley), and quite a qualified one to speak about these topics:

Andrea Roth joined the Berkeley Law faculty in 2011, after 3 years as a Grey Fellow at Stanford and 9 years as a trial and appellate public defender in Washington, D.C. Her research focuses on the ways in which pedigreed concepts of criminal procedure and evidentiary law must be retheorized in an era of science-based prosecutions. Her articles include “‘Spit and Acquit’: Prosecutors as Surveillance Entrepreneurs,” 107 [i]Cal. L. Rev.[/i] — (forthcoming 2019); “Machine Testimony,” 126 [i]Yale L.J.[/i] 1972 (2017); “Trial by Machine,” 104 [i]Georgetown L.J.[/i] 1245 (2016); “The Uneasy Case for Marijuana as Chemical Impairment Under a Science-Based Jurisprudence of Dangerousness,” 103 [i]Cal. L. Rev.[/i] 841 (2015); “Defying DNA: Rethinking the Role of the Jury in an Age of Scientific Proof of Innocence,” 93 [i]Boston U. L. Rev.[/i] 1643 (2013); “[i]Maryland v. King[/i] and the Wonderful, Horrible DNA Revolution in Law Enforcement,” 11 [i]Ohio St. L. J.[/i] 295 (2013); and “Safety in Numbers?: Deciding When DNA Alone Is Enough To Convict,” 85 [i]N.Y.U. L. Rev.[/i] 1130 (2010). She is a member of the Legal Resource Committee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Organization of Scientific Area Committees.

In 2019 Roth was one of four recipients of the campus-wide Distinguished Teaching Award. In 2017, she received the campus-wide Prytanean Faculty Award given to one pretenure woman faculty member. In 2016, she received the law school’s Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence. She has also received teaching awards from Women of Berkeley Law and the Berkeley Criminal Law Journal.

I know our culture is descending towards mob rule and anti-expertise sentiment, but I tend to listen to credentialed experts on these matters, and there are many well researched, careful critiques of DNA evidence, including from the above cited professor.

And yes, of course there are good uses of DNA forensic technology - has anyone denied that? But DNA evidence is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused and abused. Same as facial recognition technology. And in an era where basically everyone - left, right, and center - seems to distrust authorities, I think moving cautiously on that front is more than prudent and far from ludditish.

[2006alum]

I think you may have wandered onto my turf, though I don't know what your professional background is.  In any case, the article you cite is apples and oranges.

You're right, you don't know my background. I don't generally care about credentialism in internet forums, as I think facts and arguments speak for themselves. But I can assure you, mine are solid in this arena, and I'm not just astroturfing down on your turf. 

Speaking of professional backgrounds and "turf"...

What the teaching fellow (not professor) is discussing is whether DNA evidence all by itself is sufficient to convict. 

I suggest you do your research - Andrea Roth is very much a (full) professor (at UC Berkeley), and quite a qualified one to speak about these topics:

Andrea Roth joined the Berkeley Law faculty in 2011, after 3 years as a Grey Fellow at Stanford and 9 years as a trial and appellate public defender in Washington, D.C. Her research focuses on the ways in which pedigreed concepts of criminal procedure and evidentiary law must be retheorized in an era of science-based prosecutions. Her articles include “‘Spit and Acquit’: Prosecutors as Surveillance Entrepreneurs,” 107 [i]Cal. L. Rev.[/i] — (forthcoming 2019); “Machine Testimony,” 126 [i]Yale L.J.[/i] 1972 (2017); “Trial by Machine,” 104 [i]Georgetown L.J.[/i] 1245 (2016); “The Uneasy Case for Marijuana as Chemical Impairment Under a Science-Based Jurisprudence of Dangerousness,” 103 [i]Cal. L. Rev.[/i] 841 (2015); “Defying DNA: Rethinking the Role of the Jury in an Age of Scientific Proof of Innocence,” 93 [i]Boston U. L. Rev.[/i] 1643 (2013); “[i]Maryland v. King[/i] and the Wonderful, Horrible DNA Revolution in Law Enforcement,” 11 [i]Ohio St. L. J.[/i] 295 (2013); and “Safety in Numbers?: Deciding When DNA Alone Is Enough To Convict,” 85 [i]N.Y.U. L. Rev.[/i] 1130 (2010). She is a member of the Legal Resource Committee of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Organization of Scientific Area Committees.

In 2019 Roth was one of four recipients of the campus-wide Distinguished Teaching Award. In 2017, she received the campus-wide Prytanean Faculty Award given to one pretenure woman faculty member. In 2016, she received the law school’s Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence. She has also received teaching awards from Women of Berkeley Law and the Berkeley Criminal Law Journal.

I know our culture is descending towards mob rule and anti-expertise sentiment, but I tend to listen to credentialed experts on these matters, and there are many well researched, careful critiques of DNA evidence, including from the above cited professor.

And yes, of course there are good uses of DNA forensic technology - has anyone denied that? But DNA evidence is just a tool, and like any tool, it can be misused and abused. Same as facial recognition technology. And in an era where basically everyone - left, right, and center - seems to distrust authorities, I think moving cautiously on that front is more than prudent and far from ludditish.