gnu--are you sure about that in regard to the Simpson case? My understanding was that DNA should've convicted him, and he was aquitted for inexplicable reasons. At any rate, if he was aquitted in regard to DNA specifically, as you say, ...um, how does that example serve your point? Because next they'll be getting rid of juries?

DNA evidence has overturned many convictions and set innocent people free, many of them minorities who juries and witnesses wrongly convicted. The right to convict innocent people--yet another right they want to take away from us.