DNA and CII
The CII must realize impeding the use of DNA evidence obstructs the course of justice.
If DNA evidence was not admissible, many investigation forces would feel paralysed. PHOTO: FILE
It sometimes seems we truly live in strange times. Another such moment has come with the opinion expressed by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) that DNA-based evidence cannot be used as the main evidence in cases of rape, though it can be used as “supplementary” evidence. The prerequisite of the presence of four witnesses to testify to rape is to come into play as the central evidence in such cases, the CII has said after a meeting. It was addressing the various queries put before it by courts seeking an opinion on the matter.
Till now, as a matter of standard practice, the police have relied on DNA evidence when registering rape cases. Courts, too, have used this to determine matters. In this age of science, this, of course, is the norm around the world. The general consensus within the women’s rights community appears to be that this has generally led to a higher rate of conviction for rapists, given that forensic evidence often provides the most solid proof in such crimes as well as in others. Indeed, it has revolutionised criminal investigation, making it possible to more accurately pinpoint those behind various crimes. If DNA evidence was not admissible, many investigation forces would feel paralysed.
Ours will, too. The CII observation, suggesting the use of DNA evidence be limited, sets us back and makes it harder to determine crime with certainty. It will mean not only fewer convictions, but also leave greater doubt hanging over decisions reached. This is a negative development, all the more so where, judging by the incomplete data available, hundreds of rapes occur each year. As a nation which forms a part of the global village, it is important we move ahead with modern times. As it has done in the past, under more progressive heads, the CII needs to take a realistic view of matters and recognise that impeding the use of DNA evidence would only obstruct the course of justice — and this cannot be a good thing in any society.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2013.
Till now, as a matter of standard practice, the police have relied on DNA evidence when registering rape cases. Courts, too, have used this to determine matters. In this age of science, this, of course, is the norm around the world. The general consensus within the women’s rights community appears to be that this has generally led to a higher rate of conviction for rapists, given that forensic evidence often provides the most solid proof in such crimes as well as in others. Indeed, it has revolutionised criminal investigation, making it possible to more accurately pinpoint those behind various crimes. If DNA evidence was not admissible, many investigation forces would feel paralysed.
Ours will, too. The CII observation, suggesting the use of DNA evidence be limited, sets us back and makes it harder to determine crime with certainty. It will mean not only fewer convictions, but also leave greater doubt hanging over decisions reached. This is a negative development, all the more so where, judging by the incomplete data available, hundreds of rapes occur each year. As a nation which forms a part of the global village, it is important we move ahead with modern times. As it has done in the past, under more progressive heads, the CII needs to take a realistic view of matters and recognise that impeding the use of DNA evidence would only obstruct the course of justice — and this cannot be a good thing in any society.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 1st, 2013.