Some may say, conventional fingerprinting is part of DNA profiling but they actually have great differences. Even though, fingerprinting may be the easiest way to identify a person, there are many limitations to it over DNA profiling.
Today, criminals are aware that fingerprinting relies on the presence of a finger impression and wear gloves. In contrast, DNA shed at a crime-scene can be extracted from many sources and used to generate a DNA profile (Edmonston 2).
Edmondston goes on to say, DNA can be extracted from one single cell, including from partial fingerprints that can not be identified and fingerprints also can not be obtained after any type fire or bombing in any type of crime-scene.Any technique that is used to identify someone is very useful in discovering who that person is or if someone was part of the crime committed but overall, DNA profiling is the best technique over conventional fingerprinting when fingerprinting is …show more content…
With the use of DNA profiles, suspects can be narrowed down by a process of elimination. DNA evidence is a great tool in search for justice and can help prove innocence or guilt. In sexual assault and murder cases, investigators are able to profile the suspect 's DNA by hairs and fibers from clothing, carpet, bedding, or furniture that was left behind (Edmondston 13). DNA profiling is not just used in humans, but in animals as well in animal breeding disputes for accounting false paternity of animals for sale in the market according to Edmondston. As for humans, identification of biological remains damaged beyond recognition can be used in reverse of the principles applied to paternity testing. In other words, this can be helpful in the identification of bodies after death combat, by taking DNA samples from blood relatives to compare to the bodies. DNA profiling is a major tool used to solve crimes and help serve justice to the