Yes, of course, I suggest that expensive forensics should be avoided when their benefit in solving a crime is of minimal importance.  When someone is charged with a crime and they contest involvement, then DNA or other forensic evidence is important and should be evaluated.  But if the "perp" does not contest involvement and the criminality of the acts (whatever they are) depends only on conflicting testimony DNA evidence will likely contribute little to the resolution of the matter.  But hey, the decision is up to taxpayers.  If taxpayers want to pay for DNA testing in every criminal investigation so be it.  On speculation, I think I will shift some investments into forensics labs.