The amount and types of evidence needed to convict a suspect vary in courts across the world. DNA evidence, which plays an important role in solving crimes today, is also used and interpreted differently in the justice systems of all countries. According to Justice Andrew Haesler's "Issues in Collecting, Interpreting and Providing DNA Evidence", in countries such as New South Wales and North and South Australia, DNA evidence is not can alone determine guilt, but in the courts of Scotland and England there is no DNA evidence. laws preventing a conviction based solely on DNA evidence. Surprisingly, even American courts have rejected the idea that DNA evidence alone cannot convict (Haesler 5). This may be because the jury relies on scientific evidence, leading them to be willing to convict when DNA evidence is presented, but unwilling to convict in the absence of DNA evidence. This is called the “CSI effect.” Juries in American courts also tend to expect DNA evidence in some crimes, even when it is irrelevant, and when it is presented, it is often used and interpreted inaccurately when it is used. acts of convicting a suspect (Shelton 1). Not only can DNA evidence be mispresented and interpreted, but it can also be inaccurate due to the delicate nature of DNA and the tedious processes involved in identifying it. These inaccuracies lead to false convictions, sending innocent suspects to prison or even the death penalty. Often cases like these are reopened later, and only then do courts realize they convicted the wrong suspect. Cases like these beg the question why courts would not have the common sense to use DNA evidence to convict only when other evidence is present to support it. False accusations could be avoided worldwide if DNA... middle of paper ... case was based solely on this piece of evidence which could be a laboratory error, the possibility of an error should be taken into account. This should also be recognized because the simple solution to wrongful convictions based on possibly inaccurate evidence is to stop passing convictions based solely on DNA evidence. As Judge Andrew Haesler said: “As judges, lawyers, experts and potential jurors, we want evidence and results that make our already difficult jobs easier. We would like these experts to ease the burden of judgment by saying, “Here is the answer. » » (Haesler 9). However, as DNA technology currently stands, it is not perfect and never will be. DNA evidence can never be a sure way to convict a suspect; they can only be used as support to convict a suspect, in combination with other relevant evidence. DNA evidence alone is not enough for a conviction.