Because a DNA sample is INVASIVE, while fingerprints are not. You can tell a lot about a person based on a DNA sample...for example, if they have a particular kind of disease, or a likelihood for contracting it in the future. Or things about ethnic heritage. Or any number of other things.
ALL fingerprints can do is offer a unique visual signature of a person's identity. DNA gives you some of the most profound information about a person that exists.
Also, it extends to ALL 'felons'. Do we need a DNA sample from Ken Lay? What a waste of time, money, and resources THAT is. Never mind invasive.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
Re: I R IDJIT, apparently
Date: 2004-11-03 12:43 pm (UTC)ALL fingerprints can do is offer a unique visual signature of a person's identity. DNA gives you some of the most profound information about a person that exists.
Also, it extends to ALL 'felons'. Do we need a DNA sample from Ken Lay? What a waste of time, money, and resources THAT is. Never mind invasive.