According to the great English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, the way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad is by examining its utility towards society as a whole. In other words he basically suggested that a truly good law would provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In contrast to the law relating to DNA evidence, one has to ask him or herself, if DNA evidence does help achieve the greatest good, so as to determine whether the law (as it relates to the search and seizure of DNA evidence) is good or bad. The answer to the aforementioned question is a strong, resounding yes. DNA evidence helps the courts decide upon the guilt or innocence of an individual beyond any reasonable doubt. DNA evidence is generally accurate and helps the courts put away the dangerous criminals who are infesting our society. Cases such as R. v. Love (1995) stand as strong testament to the importance of DNA evidence towards resolving criminal cases and ultimately help reveal the fact that DNA evidence does contribute to the benefit of the society as a whole.
.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DNA EVIDENCE .
In 1997, William Wayne Dale Stillman put forth an appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the admissibility of DNA evidence which was acquired by police officers in a very intrusive and reprehensible manner. They intimidated him and seized his DNA without his knowledge or consent. The officers' actions in the Stillman case definitely constituted an unreasonable search and seizure and also violated Stillman's right to security of person. The Supreme Court of Canada, hence, passed a judgment in the favor of Stillman, deeming the DNA evidence inadmissible in his case. Now the question arises, are there any parallel's that can be drawn between the Stillman case and the S.A.B. case? The only evident similarity between the two cases is the fact that both cases try to challenge the constitutionality of DNA evidence by arguing that their individual rights guaranteed under Section 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated by the DNA search and seizure.