Criminal Justice System: Deoxyribonucleic Evidence

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.

Nowadays, DNA is a crucial component of a crime scene investigation, used to both to identify perpetrators from crime scenes and to determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence (Butler, 2005). The method of constructing a distinctive “fingerprint” from an individual’s DNA was first described by Alec Jeffreys in 1985. He discovered regions of repetitions of nucleotides inherent in DNA strands that differed from person to person (now known as variable number of tandem repeats, or VNTRs), and developed a technique to adjust the length variation into a definitive identity marker (Butler, 2005). Since then, DNA fingerprinting has been refined to be an indispensible source of evidence, expanded into multiple methods befitting different types of DNA

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

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.

DNA is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

Due to the brief period that Hodge had been allowed to see her attacker, the prosecution felt that stronger evidence was needed to prove a connection. The brief 6-second glimpse that the victim Nancy Hodge obtained during her ordeal wasn’t considered viable enough for trial purposes (Lewis). This relatively new forensic investigation technic involving the use of DNA fingerprinting was in its infancy and was pioneered by a British scientist might hold the answer to convicting the rapist.

In November of 1983, 15 year old Lynda Mann was found raped and murdered on a deserted road, and although police were able to obtain a semen sample from her murderer the case remained unsolved. In 1986 the killer struck again murdering 15 year old Dawn Ashworth, once again leaving behind semen, but this time the police were able to use DNA profiling to match the semen to a suspect. Colin Pitchfork became the first person to be caught based on mass DNA screening, and the first to be convicted based on DNA profiling. The use of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) in the criminal justice system has greatly tipped the scales in favor of law enforcement, and changed the world that we live in. Court cases that in the past relied heavily on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence now have science to back them up. DNA analysis has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and even though there are some flaws, the use of DNA evidence should continue to be used by law enforcement.

Perhaps the most critical improvement in criminal examination since the happening to one of a kind finger impression ID is the usage of DNA development to convict punks or get rid of persons as suspects. DNA examinations on spit, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to association guilty parties to wrongdoings. Dynamically recognized in the midst of the past 10 years, DNA development is in the blink of an eye by and large used by police, prosecutors, shield course, and courts in the United

The article that I found discusses how DNA evidence was used to convict a suspect after twenty years under investigation. The homicide case was recently closed on the rape and murder of Ophelia Preston, a 24 year-old female in Milwaukee County. Preston was deaf and mute and also suffered from a cocaine addiction, which led her to meeting Melvin Lee Jones.

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim (Calandro, 2005). It was two years later that DNA was again ruled admissible in a Virginia state ruling. In the years that followed the use of DNA in trial proceeding was not disputed. It was not until the technique of obtaining the evidence was more largely used did the practice become questionable.

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.

There have been many incidents where cases have needed a solid prosecution in order to convict the defendant in a murder or rape case. This is where DNA Testing comes in to help. By taking a DNA test, a person can be found guilty or not guilty. If a person claims they have been raped there can be a sperm sample taken from the suspect in order to prove that he is guilty or not. In addition, in a murder case there can be blood taken from the suspect so they can tell of his innocence. There are several ways to determine whether a person is guilty or not by this method. Many cases have begun to use this method saying that it is foolproof. People say this is the method of the future of crime

Sally Anne Bowman, an 18-year-old model/singer, was murdered outside her home in Croydon after a night out with her sister. She was stabbed 7 times in total with 3 exits wounds where the knife completely penetrated her body. Sally also suffered severe bite wounds and was raped after she was killed. Her ex-boyfriend Lewis was the initial suspect and he was arrested before DNA evidence proved his innocence. The DNA found on intimate examination of Sally’s body did not match Lewis’s, instead it matched an unsolved sexual assault from 4 years prior. Police were then informed of an attempted attack which occurred nearby around an hour before Sally was killed. The victim was able to provide some detail of the appearance of her attacker, which was

The wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin in Canada for the murder of Christine Jessop in 1984 is on record for legal history as evidence that prosecutions can mistake in any justice system. The conviction of Guy Paul was based off of secondary evidence, contaminated evidence, unreliable testimony and poor police work and it took advances in forensic science and DNA fingerprinting to finally clear his name in 1995 (H2G2, 2013).The murderer of Christine Jessop has not yet been found till this day, but there is still hope that further advances in forensic science will solve the mystery eventually, so that justice will be served (H2G2, 2013). Initially this case all begun when Christine Jessop, a nine-year-old girl who lived in Queensville, Ontario,