DNA Adoption

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.

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.

DNA is one of the most important pieces of evidence that a criminal justice agent can use in a court of law. There ae slim to no crimes committed that doesn’t have some type of DNA evidence left behind. Some DNA evidence could be, but not limited to, fingerprints, blood, hair, and any other bodily fluids. DNA is known as Deoxyribonucleic Acid, and is one of two types of molecules that encode genetic information (Medicine.net, 2017). DNA is characteristically unique to each person individually, unless they are a twin. DNA dictates a person’s look such as their eye color, blood type, height, hair color, skin color, etc. With this genetic information, intense testing can be done to find who may be connected to the genetic makeup of each stand

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

Familial searching is a violation of privacy. Just as how the famous stop-and-frisk was deemed unconstitutional this should be also. From knowing how some law enforcement officers have been corrupt in the past it is hard to believe that with such power of having access to others DNA they are not going to be as corrupt and convict people for crimes they didn’t do, most specifically being people of color. Just as how the stop-and-frisk targeted people of color this too will be just the same. This will cause police officers to have an even worst reputation that they do today, and it will cause distrust and rebel in communities. Just because a family member is a criminal does not mean that the entire family needs to be dragged into that mess,

DNA comparisons are crucial when investigating crimes. Amanda Christopher’s home had a significant amount of forensic evidence behind that has yet to be determined. The Supreme Court has analyzed the issue as to whether or not use storing and using DNA was considered constitutional. Although, Pennsylvania is silent on the issue, several states have seen the need for the use and storage of DNA that is obtained of arrestees charged of serious crimes, such as felonies and sexual offenses. Analyzing both the federal and other states provides some guidance as to whether or not the use of previously obtained DNA is constitutional.

The DNA Identification Act of 1993 was formerly known as the Omnibus Crime control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Under the new act forensic laboratories are authorized to analyze DNA for identification purposes that are retrieved from crime scenes. With the regulations of the act the Federal Bureau of Investigation is obligated to follow standards such as setting standards for testing and issuing an advisory board to supervise the standards for quality assurance. Of the results under the act records are established of persons convicted of crimes, samples recovered from crime scenes, and samples from unidentified human remains.

There are two types of outside adoption, one is closed adoption and the other is open adoption. In open adoption the biological parents are given the ability to have contact with their child through the adoptive parents and share any background information needed. Likewise, the children are also given the free

As it gradually progresses to be a more improved and powerful tool in the Criminal Justice system, it should inarguably be believed that this form of forensic evidence remains as the only reliable source for providing just outcomes in a case. This technique can be discerningly used to identify criminals and exonerate wrongly-accused individuals with tremendous accuracy due to DNA’s biology to pinpoint specific suspects, it’s unique processes and the many databases it possesses. With all things considered, DNA technology has become increasingly vital to provide fairness and accuracy in the Criminal

I agree that family DNA searches are seen as a crime-solving tool and an intrusion on rights because it can help find suspects and criminals, but also can give misconceptions along with false accusations on many cases. Personally, I would not feel comfortable if investigators search my family databases to find a potential criminal because I would just try to defend my family members. Family DNA searching can be flawed because there are so many factors that can give false information. For example, if a teacher was killed while grading their students’ homework, the homework papers might have DNA samples on them which could interfere when investigators are checking the blood samples and other evidence. Another reason why this system is bad is

While DNA evidence can be very useful in criminal investigations, it is unnecessary to establish a DNA databank for all citizens. Such a databank would go against citizens’ rights, especially that of being “innocent until proven guilty.” Currently, a person may not be investigated in a crime unless there is evidence strongly suggesting that person as a suspect. If a citizen DNA databank were established, all citizens could be investigated for crimes indirectly. There is no reason to treat innocent people with such suspicion. Those who establish themselves as good citizens should be allowed to keep their privacy.

DNA databases have always been a controversial topic for not only the common people, but the governments of nations as well. DNA databases store all of the citizens’ DNA and basic genetic information on a national or international computerized system. The reasons as to why it is controversial ranges from, human rights to the risk of a security breach, and government corruption. Though the negatives vary and pose important considerations, the positives of having a database can improve the accuracy and the shorten the amount of time taken to solve crimes; and can create stronger international connections. Along with these, people also believe that rather in decreasing the security of