DNA In The Criminal Justice System: The DNA Success Story In Perspective

In McClure, Weisburd and Wilson (2008) summary article arguing that in addition to bench science, field experimentation involving forensic methods is key to assess the utility of various methods to solve crimes. The study reflected that there is a need for more research into many aspects of forensic science, criticizing the strength of scientific evidence that’s collected at a crime scene and interpretations of most forensic methods while omitting DNA testing. McClure et al’s (2008) explains that in sexual cases and homicides, the presence of DNA evidence actually increased the likelihood of prosecution and a conviction. According to the article “…the case of convictions, the odds-ratio for the presence of DNA evidence was 33.1 for sexual offenses and 23.1 for homicides” (McClure et al., 2008). Subsequently, the research shows that there was a consistent gradual decline in the national homicide rates that began in the 1900s and continued through into the 21st century. The decline of homicides in the US has dropped by from more than 90% in the 1960s to 62% in 2003. Even though this significant drop has occurred during the introduction of the new DNA testing

DNA forensics is a division of forensic science that focuses on the use of genetic material in criminal investigation to answer questions pertaining to legal situations, including criminal and civil cases. Through DNA testing, law enforcement officers are able to identify human remains or the individual responsible for a crime. DNA testing is a highly advanced scientific process that involves replicating the human DNA sequence to create a genetic map of an individual. Because of its reliability, DNA testing has become a significant factor in criminal cases. However, it has also been identified as having the potential to violate privacy and constitutional rights. The DNA identification process consists of five stages. These five stages

Today in the crime world, DNA evidence is strongly accepted in solving crime cases. This is all based in part by allowing a crime laboratory to have a designated unit whose main goal is to analyze DNA evidence to aid investigators with positive outcomes in crime case solving. With that being said we are going to discuss the functions of a DNA unit within a crime lab as well as address the vital role these units play in solving crime.

The Fourth Amendment gives United States citizens the right of protection from unlawful searches and seizures. Recently, in the case Maryland v. King the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure of DNA during the booking process is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The ruling by the Supreme Court has to be further evaluated and questioned as it raises questions as to what is covered under the Fourth Amendment and if a person is allowed that right while in custody. Vikram Iyengar in his law review article ‘Maryland v. King: The case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States’ will allow a closer look into how this ruling may cause a conflict with state laws. The ruling in this case will spur many

investigations both past and present. It can be used to identify criminals when there is evidence

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 the 1980s, 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. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) has been used to analyze and prove innocence or guilt of suspects of crimes with great accuracy. DNA is part of everyday life. It is the heredity material in humans and almost all other organisms. While being part of an investigation. DNA has helped to solve crimes. There is a couple ways that DNA left behind can be tested to solve a crime. Either if the suspect has been caught and or had his or her DNA tested, or if he or she has left behind any biological evidence. Which then needs to be tested to see if it matches the DNA found in the crime scene to his or hers DNA. The result to this comparison may help establish if the suspect committed the crime.

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

Because there are many different types of crimes, it is often difficult to find enough physical evidence to convict a person. For example, in rape cases there is usually only a small amount of physical evidence, so cases are based on word alone. Because of DNA testing we can now take samples from the victim and attempt to match the results with those of the suspect. Therefore, DNA is sometimes the only real way of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect without having any witnesses. Since many rape cases are left unsolved, DNA testing is believed to be the most accurate way of keeping sex offenders off the street. Because of the growing trend of using DNA in rape cases especially, a company in Brooklyn now advertises a small flashlight-like device intended to be used to jab at attackers in order to collect a sample of his skin for later use (Adler). According to a study by Joseph Peterson, with the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois, DNA evidence does not have a major impact on the decision to either convict or acquit

Texas is known for some terrible things, but few are as bad as our penchant for sentencing innocent people to death. Advances in forensic science (like using science) have helped exonerate at least 48 people in Texas since 2001, when a law made it easier for defendants to request post-conviction DNA testing. Study of DNA exoneration cases has shown the fallibility of other, less scientific types of evidence, like “snitch” testimony provided by alleged accomplices or jailhouse informants.

The article I chose is titled “Forensics gone wrong: When DNA snares the innocent”. The source of the article is www.sciencemag.org. This particular news article is about DNA evidence and how it has changed Christopher Tapp’s life. Christopher Tapp is an inmate at Idaho State Correctional Institution and has been falsely convicted of murder. Greg Hampikian is a biologist/criminologist that has a desire to help innocent people like Tapp.

Another report from Turman, herarticle about the importance of DNA evidence to say in a strong and definite way that the offenders or to prove prisoner in criminal cases has arose in the media with the developing regularity over the last few years. Criminal justice professionals and the public behold that the forensic DNA technology is reforming

What is DNA? Is it these winding strands that look like ladders or is it what gives a person blonde hair and blue eyes? Actually, DNA is both of these things. DNA is a person’s genetic makeup–their hereditary blueprint passed on by their parents. It is a part of almost every cell in the human body. In each cell, a person’s DNA is the same; it stays the same throughout their lifetime. DNA is found in skin tissue, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, semen, and vaginal or rectal cells. The DNA found in a person’s saliva is the same as the DNA found in their blood. Parts of the DNA determine our physical characteristics, such as eye and hair color, height, and bone structure, but the

DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, which is found in almost all living things. DNA serves as a code for the creation and maintenance of new cells within an organism. Within humans, it is found in almost every cell. Although most of our DNA is found within the nucleus of our cells as nuclear DNA, a very small amount of our DNA is also found within the mitochondria as mitochondrial DNA. Because mitochondrial DNA is generally not used for solving crimes, for the purpose of this paper it will be disregarded.