DNA Should NOT Be Used To Solve Crime

While controversy exists for a DNA database, the US possessing such a resource could possibly be one of the greatest advantages our government has ever possessed. Many times in crime shows you see a miracle DNA identification, but in reality there is less than .1% of our population recorded in such a fashion. With a nationalized DNA database it would be substantially easier to solve many crimes where DNA presents itself. It would also create a way to ID people even when they provide false papers or identity. Though perhaps the greatest point in favor of a national database is the simple fact that if your innocent you

Human DNA is very similar to one another, but only about 0.1% is different from the next person. That 0.1% can tell a person’s eye color, hair color, and other physical features. DNA analyst are able to take a drop of blood, the size of a dime, and duplicate the number DNA found in that drop. With the ability to duplicate DNA, analysts can have a back-up, in the event a human error were to occur. Analyst can tell you exactly where your ancestors came from and the percentage that is still inside your DNA. DNA is a very powerful tool that can identify a murder if the individual left any blood, saliva, skin tissue, hair or semen. The education needed to be able make use of the DNA consists of a great deal of science classes.

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 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

If the government had every U.S. citizen’s DNA, and could in fact determine this information, I have no doubt it would be abused. This furthers my stance that a database like this should not be created or allowed.

Science is providing us the chance to change lives and save lives, outweighing the negatives that may result. Forensic DNA Phenotyping will make crime investigation increasingly more efficient due to it’s ability to determine certain attributes of the suspect. Instead of the police investigators searching for a suspect without any idea of who they should be searching for, through DNA phenotyping police can now have a narrower clue as to the appearance of the individual due to the ability to determine their faces morphology including hair color, eye color, skin pigmentation, gender, and height. Compared to current practice of racial profiling used by investigators following a crime, DNA phenotyping would eliminate this practice by providing and more detailed profile of who it is they should be searching for. Making forensic DNA phenotyping far more efficient and reliable then other methods. Also, the use of eye-witnesses who are not always accurate often lead to the conviction of an innocent individual. This can be prevented by forensic DNA phenotyping and eliminate the possibility of a wrong accusation by providing genetic basis for it’s claims. Though more phenotyping is in the works, currently sex, hair color, and iris color have been proven, along with being able to provide a detailed profile of an individual. Also, DNA phenotyping such as testing for a DNA match, or simply matching DNA/fingerprints to an individual should be used because the results are fact

Crime is a major issue worldwide. The types of crimes vary, all differentiating in severity. Teens shoplifting candy at a grocery store, assaulting a person, and serial murders are examples of the different types of crimes. Unfortunately, many crimes that are committed the government cannot address properly because of insufficient evidence. The unidentified subject that committed a crime may leave a large amount of their DNA at the crime scene, though the DNA may not be in any databases. Identifying the subject would be increasingly difficult, and in the time dedicated to identification, the subject may perform more violations of laws. The issue of locating family members that have been separate is also a great concern among people in the United States. This is why the United States government should require all people to provide their DNA when obtaining their identification documents.

Except in the case of identical twins, the probability that two people have the same genetic code at all thirteen core loci is less than one in one trillion (Crest, 2005). Investigators compare these genetic fingerprints with profiles stored in databases of previous offenders, and if they find a match, it proves that the person was at the crime scene. 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 (Silverstein, 1996). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

“Deoxyribonucleic Acid, also known as (DNA), was first introduced in the 1800 by Alphonse Bertillon, a French Anthropologist. DNA, which defines the hereditary make-up found in humans and other living organisms, can be obtained from the blood, saliva, sweat, hair, and urine. DNA profiling was mainly used as a method of determining paternity.” (Cormier, 2005). In 1986, DNA was first introduced into the courts when investigator’s in England asked molecular biologist, Alec Jeffreys, to use DNA to verify the innocence of a 17 year-old boy. He had been identified as a perpetrator in two rape-murder cases in the English Midlands. The tests proved that the teenager was in fact innocent and was not the perpetrator of the crimes. Because of DNA testing the perpetrator was eventually

There are many ways to make DNA more efficient. First off today they try to collect any and all DNA evidence they can (Weedn and Hicks 7). By collection as much DNA and evidence as possible it is less likely someone will be wrongfully convicted. Then using more than just juries to determine relevance of evidence and using all evidence available properly (“Times London” 4). By letting a jury decide what evidence is relevant they are susceptible to bias from defence or prosecution. This in makes it more likely for wrongful convictions. Finally a big problem is DNA and evidence

The Newest Law commencing this January makes the police enter all convicted felons DNA into the system. The new laws IC code is 10-13-6-8 the code allows convicted criminals; persons arrested for a felony; crime scene specimens; unidentified missing persons; and close biological relatives of missing persons to be DNA tested and entered into the Data base. Although it is possible to have your DNA removed from the system such as: if three hundred sixty-five days have elapsed since the person's arrest; no felony charges have been filed against the person; and the person wishes to have the person's DNA removed from the data base. A pro of DNA testing is everyone that commits a felony is tested and you could possibly solve another crime from DNA

Over the past decade, DNA technology has revolutionized the criminal justice system. In countless cases DNA results have served to identify suspects, convict the guilty, and bring solace to many victims. In several cases DNA examinations have exonerated the innocent, at times, after years of unjust imprisonment. DNA technology has also been used to identify human remains from mass disasters, such as the one experienced by the United States of America on September 11, 2001. There are many arguments for and against the use of DNA data banks. Privacy advocates state that DNA data banks may threaten an individuals' rights of privacy due to misuse and unlawful dissemination of DNA information. On the other hand, convicted felons feel that the forcible

Second, Government are invading our personal privacy. Instead of getting all the people’s DNA. They should only get criminal’s DNA. This will ensure that innocent people won’t get falsely accused. “Collection DNA data of every citizen also questions the civil liberties within 2 liberal democracy and whether individual’s rights truly are protected.”(Michael Hiltzik 2011). Getting DNA from people will make them feel like they don’t have freedom that they are supposed to have freedom.