Some believe that new science related to criminal forensics should be used to look at old cases. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people strongly suggest that cold cases should be examined using new scientific methods related to criminal forensics. I agree with this opinion to a certain extent. To begin with, old criminal cases need to be looked into by advanced science and technology due to it is the most effective approach to finding legal justice and reducing the crime rate. That is to say, innocent people who were falsely accused by law and imprisoned for decades would have an opportunity to clear themselves of a false charge. According to an article from Korea, the Korea Crime Scene Investigation identified the offender committed a serial sex assault 30 years ago utilizing criminal forensics and the unfairly charged inmate could be released. Secondly, it can be seen that employing modern criminal technology has a vital role in alleviating the criminal rate. Thirdly, it is also easily apparent that new scientific methods help to secure our society by enlightening the public to observe how scientific methods work. Opponents, On the other hand, might point out that some of the evidence from cold cases may already have been tampered with or destroyed. That means although it is a scientifically developed device it is useless. DNA and fingerprints, for example, usually remain on certain days and they are hardly adapted for the legal process to prove as evidence. Furthermore, while forensic evidence can be powerful and influential, there is a risk of its misuse in court. Inaccurate or exaggerated claims by forensic experts can lead to miscarriages of justice. This is exemplified by the USA in the 1990s which wrongly suspected a man as a drug dealer who was switched urine test by a police officer. In conclusion, it is an efficient approach to finding legal justice, alleviating the criminal rate, and helping secure our society. However, there are possibilities of being useless as destroyed and misused.