If you were on a jury where such DNA evidence were used, you would be taught the relevant science.
If you were adequately educated in (modern) science, you would already know most of it.
For your education I will now inform you of the basics.
DNA is unique to each human being, other than identical twins.
The Federal CODIS database tracks 13 locations in the Genome where there are short terminal repeats (a sequence such as “ATAGACAT” repeated from a dozen to a couple dozen times at a particular location).
A “DNA ID” is therefore 26 numbers that tell you the repeat number at each of those locations (keep in mind we each have one from our father and one from our mother).
This creates a unique designation, and the chances of two people having the exact same ID based upon this system is less than a Trillion to one (with 6 billion being the human population, that makes it “impossible” for there to be a random match from a different person).
The number of repeats is an exact number, not a number within a tolerance (the gel is run far enough that a 6 copy repeat standard is CLEARLY not where the 7 repeat standard is - and you match the sample to the standard).
So a positive match is when the DNA run from a crime scene matches those 26 numbers exactly.
The medium of the sample is a dried blood spot. The medium of the data is the Federal CODIS database. Each record is not only run twice independently, it is entered and cross checked so the type of database administration error you are supposing is much less likely than that the DNA sperm sample from the rape victim is an actual match to the convicted felon whose DNA ID was entered into the system.
Moreover an initial “false positive” will certainly be shown to be false, because both the initial subject and the crime scene sample are then independently reanalyzed to confirm the match.
So when the lab tells you that the sperm sample they ran from the rape victim was from convict #2534678 - they have on file to back their claim, the initial DNA gel that gave the ID type from the convict - as well as the haploid DNA gel that gave the ID type from the crime scene sample - can show you that it was a match - and then they can show you the gels from the reanalysis.
Moreover, if you suspect you are being railroaded by a government lab; you can get the samples run by an independent analyst.
This is almost never done, because the independent analysis will show the guilt of the guilty party AGAIN - and they seem unwilling to pay for the tests to AGAIN confirm that they are the guilty party.
OK, here's the problem. Whatever it was that caused you to claim this:
that thus you are unwilling to accept sciencesort of helps make my point and really prevents any further discussion for us because it a statement that borders on the unreasonable and is laden with presumptions that are just plain wrong.
This is a serious impediment to your credibility with me.
Yes, science has grown smarmy. That you can't admit even that convicts you of egregious, self-serving bias.
You're a product of American "higher education" and you've probably rarely worked in the private sector. You sound like everyone I've ever spoken to in medicine or law enforcement.
I'm done here. Gluck.