Instead, lying about not being a rapist is seen as no big deal. They don't even get mentioned when their claims that the DNA will exonerate them turn out to be false and the DNA evidence instead reinforces the previous judgment of their guilt. Rarely do the people who say women lie about rape mention men who make claims of being raped that turn out to be false.
Maybe these cases don't fit the desired narrative? And if it don't fit, you must omit.
Then there is the possibility that DNA evidence will be seen as proving innocence when the person convicted is guilty as charged. I've heard people actually claim that people give off enough DNA evidence that just being close enough to touch will leave detectable evidence of your DNA.
This simply isn't true, at least with the technology we have now.
In the cases where the victim survived the crime and in certain murders, there can be enough information to know what DNA could be present but which doesn't match a criminal in that case. In other cases, this information is unknown.
Blindly assuming that any DNA found among the evidence collected must belong to the real criminal is a mistake that could put a very dangerous criminal back on the street and which could send an innocent person to prison.
DNA evidence is important, but its presence or absence needs to be understood fully.
Sponsor my participation in the blogathon to help raise money for the organization Stop It Now!