Arguments Against Dna Testing

DNA evidence is extremely helpful in criminal trials not only because it can determine the guilt of a suspect, but also because it can keep innocent people from going to jail. The suspect must leave a sample of their DNA at the crime scene in order for testing to occur, but DNA can be found in the form of many things such as semen, blood, hair, saliva, or skin scrapings. According to Newsweek, "thousands of people have been convicted by DNA's nearly miraculous ability to search out suspects across space and time… hundreds of innocent people have also been freed, often after years behind bars, sometimes just short of the death chamber" (Adler ). Though some may think it is a waste of time to go

I am sided with the right to allow DNA Analysis for a crime a suspect is convicted for committing but is pledging not guilty in the trial. About 0.5% convictions of crime are the innocent serving jail time in prison or death row and are not even the actual suspect of the crime scene putting other people at fault of those who have not done any harm. This even violates an individual’s right of freedom as they are being wrongfully accused and imprisoned. These people who are being accused should have the right to be proven they are not the suspect by true accurate DNA analysis over false eyewitness or misidentification as even it can be used as an importance of pulling vital clues regarding the perpetrator of a crime in which a victim’s condition is unrecognizable to family or friends.

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

There have been many cases over the years within in the criminal justice system where people have walked free from committing a crime as well as those being put behind bars for being accused of committing a crime they never committed. DNA testing in the criminal justice system can be the decision maker for someone who is either going to walk free from the crime they possibly committed or get put behind bars for a crime they may have not committed. DNA testing has been used to sentence hundreds and convict thousands of people across the country every year. DNA evidence is one of the best examples on how technology has made convicting the criminals who have committed a crime much easier than it has been done in the past. DNA evidence does not necessarily pinpoint the exact criminal on who have may commited the crime, but it does bring it down to a handful of the population who are being questioned for the crime. It is one of the most accurate ways of finding out evidence as long as it is properly done and handled correctly.

Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).

Marieb stated (435), DNA fingerprinting can prove that a suspect was actually at the scene of a crime and establishes innocence.” Before the evolution of DNA fingerprinting, persecuting attorney and our judicial system depended on many aspects of reliable sources to convict a criminal. They depended on the eyewitnesses who were likely to recant on their statements, tampered evidence, and bias jurors. Presently, DNA fingerprinting have aided in exonerating hundreds of cases including Ray Krone, also known as The Snaggle Tooth Killer. He was exculpated by DNA evidence after he served 10 years and was facing the death penalty for a crime he didn’t commit. He was wrongly convicted of murder and the circumstantial evidence at the time was the bite marks they found on the victim’s body resembled his teeth. DNA revealed Kenneth Phillips was the culprit. He was the 100th inmate vindicated through DNA from death row since 1976. Even though, this is a fascinating process. It is not a perfect system. Similarly, fingerprints were used in the past, yet the current progression speaks for

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.

There are often mistakes made that falsely determine an individual’s sentence. Sloppy police work and loss of documents are examples of careless errors. There is also some room for error with determining the results of a DNA sample that do not fall under the human error category. Many times there may not be ample DNA samples at a crime scene. Only a fraction of crimes reveal DNA. Drive-by shootings and bombings often do not provide DNA for investigation purposes. “There is a public perception that DNA is the cure-all for these kinds of mistakes. DNA is not the whole answer.” (Dieter, Richard) Eye witnesses cannot solely and accurately determine a person’s fate 100 percent of the time. There are numerous amounts of cases in which those found guilty were indeed later found innocent. Many times, these individuals have already served time in jail. Many argue that the time inmates spend in

Many people continue to languish in jails all over the word while others have since faced capital punishment as a result of wrongful convictions. It is from this premise that innovation through DNA analysis has come to provide the much needed relief in correcting these errors. While there are many factors related to wrongful convictions, miscarriage of justice stands as the main culprit with many of these cases being faced with lack of conclusive or efficient investigations. There are several factors that come out as the main factors in contributing to miscarriage of justice such as false confessions, eyewitness misidentification, outdated evidence collection methods, snitches, incompetent lawyers and government misconduct among others.

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)

In addition to undeserved charges, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people for crimes in which they were convicted over the past few years. When DNA testing became readily available to the criminal justice system, crucial flaws began to surface. It was realized that people were serving hard-time for felony crimes they didn’t commit.

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.)

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

Before any release, there must be proper evidence showing that the accused had nothing to do with the crime. The introduction of the first person using DNA to prove his innocent was David Vasquez. In 1985, he was convicted, later in 1990; he was released due to DNA evidence (O’Leary, 2012). Since the Vasquez case, DNA testing has been a very powerful technique to use to prove a person’s innocence. A great reason for this is because victims are capable of lying and misidentifying.