American Criminal Equity Framework

This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.

Incarceration has grown so much in the past three decades. Majority of these prisoners are parents to small children. More than ever, we need the cooperation between corrections, health and human service to work together to help these prisoners to get back to a good life. As we know incarceration and probation occurred in 1813 when Judge Peter Thatcher began placing youthful offenders under the supervision of officials. He also helped drunks and other unfortunates by bailing them out and provide “friendly supervision” to help them to

The criminal justice system in America is a system designed to work in three distinct steps. The first being to fairly identify those breaking the law, second, create a process through which to both punish and rehabilitate criminals, and lastly integrate them back into society. The current system typically goes unquestioned, as those in the system seem to be deserving of what ever happens while they are in it, even once they have served their prison sentence. It is only upon deeper inspection that we begin to realize the discrimination and unfair tactics used to introduce certain groups of society into the criminal justice system and proceed to trap them there. This is the issue addressed in Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, and it is through arrests, sentencing and further upon release from jail that this oppressive system is created and maintained.

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Economic status is a relevant aspect in the experience of punishment. To an individual who sternly believes that the American justice system entitles every person to the same standard of due process, the previously mentioned idea is blasphemous. Unfortunately, the concept is false. The American justice system does not equally accommodate the needs of criminals placed on trial. Class is relevant in the experience of punishment only because economic inequality is barely recognized in the formulation and carrying out of prison sentences. The foundation of this unjust punishment is laid down at the trial, where disadvantaged individuals find themselves the victims of stereotypes, poor legal representation and haphazard verdicts. Once imprisoned, lower class criminals become immersed in an environment which mimics the troubled circumstances that originally led them to commit crime. Having received an ineffective sentence, convicts return to their poor communities and are expected to reintegrate into society without proper treatment.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

“Most Americans harbor the presumption that their criminal justice system is fair and blind. Within that a priori delusion, an assumption is made that no person shall ever be convicted for a crime that he or she did not commit (Huff, 2002; Marquis, 2005),” (Jones 2012) .The United States upholds itself on the ideology of freedom yet represses the freedom of innocent American citizens. From a young age, children are taught that if they don’t lie, cheat or steal, they won’t have

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

In addition to the previously noted negative psychological effects of prisonization, it is common for individuals who were wrongly imprisoned to be angry and bitter about the injustice they suffered (Cook et al., 2014). The fact of their innocence heightens the psychological toll, which exacerbates the overall effects of imprisonment (Campbell & Denov, 2004). In a seminal study on the psychological consequences of wrongful conviction, Grounds (2004) completed systematic psychiatric assessments of 18 exonerated men who had no psychiatric histories prior to their wrongful arrests. His findings were telling: 14 met the criteria for “enduring personality change after catastrophic experience” (p. 168), 12 met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, 10 were diagnosed with depressive disorder, 5 exhibited panic disorder features, 4 exhibited paranoid symptoms, and three were alcohol or drug dependent. As case managers, social workers should be aware of likely psychological effects common among exonerees and should have a pool of therapeutic resources to draw from as referrals for them. As mental health care providers working with exonerees, social workers should learn as much as possible about problems common among this population, and recognize that they have unique needs beyond the needs shared by all former

Matt Taibbi’s “The Divide” uses facts to contradict the American idea of a fair justice system. Taibbi presents us with an unsteadily statistics: while poverty increases, crime decreases, and the jail population has increased 600% since 1991. Moreover, Taibbi states in which while many are being prosecuted, others are not. On the surface, our justice system may seem quintessential. However, Taibbi reveals a more biased American court than one may expect.

Whether guilty of crimes or innocent, our incarceration system is an issue that many activists rally around in terms of its success and promise in correcting and rehabilitating criminal behavior. So, to read letters and hear the voices of those who are living on the marginalized edges of our society, but who rarely have a voice in the issue that’s being nationally rallied around, is an uncommon circumstance that should be noted and have more attention and action drawn to. Their desire to educate themselves within the confines of a prison wall is real and heard by those of us who take time to spend their weekday evenings in the bottom of a church basement, sorting through donated books, and reading literary wish-lists of those who are incarcerated.

It is incredible to think that a single piece of evidence can be used to convict or acquit a suspect, but such is the case with DNA profiling. Throughout the past few decades, DNA profiling has evolved immensely from a genetic fingerprint discovered by Sir Alec Jeffreys in 1984 into an aspect of everyday forensics affecting millions of cases and trials today. Since a suspect’s conviction or acquittal rests on the proper collection of DNA evidence, regulations have been put into place, as a result of the ‘DNA wars’, to ensure the evidence is admissible. DNA profiling has been made famous through trials such as OJ Simpson versus Nicole Brown. Genetic fingerprinting has also begun to branch from the forensic field into discovering a person’s ancestry

guardians or siblings or sisters again. Some were enlisted out as shabby work for station proprietors as housemaids or stockboys.

The criminal justice system in America is divided by each one state, with each one state being