preview

DNA Evidence And Forensic Evidence Analysis

Decent Essays
DNA evidence is thought to be the greatest tool to determine conviction status of suspects in criminal cases. However, since its use in. issues have arisen between individuals’ understanding of the committed crime and the accurate results of evidence and how this effects a suspect’s final conviction status. As a result, researchers of this article conducted three studies to determine whether scientific forensic evidence is being mistreated by jurors in criminal court case decisions.
In study 1, undergraduates and jurors were asked to complete a questionnaire that was used to see effects that DNA had in comparison to other evidence and the extent to which it is considered substantial evidence. Researchers predicted that DNA evidence would be
…show more content…
Their hypothesis for this study was the same as the hypothesis in study 1. In this study, undergraduates were given a pack of information that would be used to make a verdict in a trial where a female was assaulted. Subjects were separated into two groups, an eyewitness-matched group and another where they did not match. Both groups were told that one piece of evidence was incriminating and that others were not. Groups were told that the victim either did or did not identify the suspect in a line-up and was or was not informed of an error rating for the lab that analyzed evidence. Subjects were then asked the likelihood that the suspect committed the crime and whether they found DNA evidence to be incriminating. The IV in this study was the group that the subjects were placed in and whether they were or were not given extra information regarding the case and the DV was the subjects’ probability for the crime. Results of this study showed that when DNA evidence was present, it was more likely to get a conviction compared to other forms of evidence. Another piece of evidence, blood-type, was also found to be more likely to get a conviction when it was present, however, it was thought that subjects might have interpreted this evidence as DNA evidence as well further confirming the superiority of this…show more content…
One question that I thought of was how often is the reliability of the person who performed the analysis and the lab that analyzed the evidence brought up in court during cases? My thoughts were that this is not something that is often brought up and as a result, only the evidence is what is used to convict. Another question I had regarding the second study was the fact that they did not include the investigator asking questions on the reliability of the lab used to analyze the evidence. If researchers would have included this in the scenario where victim was able to identify her attacker during the second line-up, would this have changed the way that some subjects looked at the evidence? I would expect that this would result in some subjects putting more value in the witness testimony than the DNA evidence being
Get Access