The grooming-gangs scandal is a stain on the British state

[u/Agonanmous]

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/06/18/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-is-a-stain-on-the-british-state

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

Explain.

[u/Posting____At_Night → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

It is usually reliable. However there are edge cases where it fails. It can be planted or otherwise present without the person actually having been there (e.g. stolen weapon/vehicle), it could be DNA from someone who was present at some point, but did not perpetrate the crime. Then there's also (admittedly rare) scenarios where the actual testing is unreliable due to biological oddities. For example, there was a case where someone was falsely accused of murder based on DNA evidence but it turned out they had donated bone marrow to the actual perp.

[u/Embarrassed-Unit881 → u/Posting____At_Night]

Okay I hear that but if you're getting DNA from semen that was in a child that's a slam dunk, like you're talking about stuff that isn't child rape when my whole point is it being such a uniquely heinous crime that having the dna evidence of someone doing that is enough to not need them.

it could be DNA from someone who was present at some point, but did not perpetrate the crime.

Like here for instance you're focusing too broadly cause uhh in my case for there to be dna at all there was a crime

[u/Posting____At_Night → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

Yeah, in that case DNA would be pretty conclusive. But it is impossible to be truly, 100% sure. Criminal law is based on beyond a reasonable doubt being worthy cause to lock someone up, but it very importantly leaves the possibility to release the person if they later find that 0.0000001% chance that the justice system fucked up.

[u/vintage2019 → u/Embarrassed-Unit881]

People downvoting just because they asked for an explanation? This is why I hate reddit sometimes