Imagine police having a DNA sample from a crime scene and comparing it to a suspect; that seems like a direct way to get closer to the truth. The other side worries about misuse, but my gut says it helps catch the right person.

[No submission - Time expired]

Think about what a jury has to decide: was this person there? DNA doesn't prove intent, but it's very good at answering whose genetic material this is. My opponent's accidental-transfer worry is fair, and labs should know that touch DNA can move. But the fix is training, blanks, and explaining transfer to juries, not ditching a tool that excludes suspects too. A lot of cases have no reliable eyewitness; DNA can be the one thread that's hard to fake and easy to re-test. Used with care, it points toward truth more often than away from it. That's why I'm still for it.