Do you think DNA fingerprint evidence from a person convicted of a misdemeanor “going too far”? Explain why or why not.

Definitely not. Misdemeanors may range in severity levels (taking into mind that your location may classify crimes differently from others). There are common misdemeanors, such as vandalism, trespass, reckless driving, etc... and there are more serious & severe crimes such as domestic violence charges, assault and battery, shoplifting. All of these are misdemeanors, yet some of these charges likewise assault or domestic violence charges is still classified as simply a common misdemeanor. Your question pertains to using DNA evidence for convicting lawbreakers. Let's keep in mind that DNA evidence is sought to be extremely accurate and reliable meaning with DNA evidence, you will most-definitely be able to prove a point. It's good to have a trust-worthy source that us humans can depend on when trying to prove something that may be detrimental or glorifying. This will help limit the amount of false-charges, especially of more severe misdemeanors (as such assault and battery) and actually show that the system we use, is organized, attested, and safe. No matter the crime justice should be served, and that justice should steam from a fair, and accurate, yet strict system.

answer:

omg lol

explanation: