Forensic Paper

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.

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

DNA collection is a good thing not only can it help catch the person responsible for an illegal crime, but it can also clear up a suspect’s name. In the case of Maryland v. King on April 2009 Alonzo Jay King was charged for first and second degree assault for scarring a crowd of people with a shotgun, he was arrested and as a part of their booking procedure, they swabbed Alonzo Jay King for his DNA. Kings DNA sample later resulted to be a match of a DNA sample in the system “CODIS” of a rape victim by the name of Vonette W.’s Salisbury. Vonnette was raped on September 2003 but had not gotten justice for the crime against her since the only evidence was the DNA sample of the semen that was swabbed. No matches were found in the data base until Alonzo Jay King was arrested. By collecting DNA, it can help lead to an arrest of a suspect and to be able to close cases.

I. Before the 1980’s, 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.

The article I chose is titled, DNA in the Criminal Justice System: The DNA Success Story in Perspective which described the importance of DNA testing in a criminal investigation. This falls under the category of “confirming the guilty and protecting the innocence” in the NIJ report. According to Mapes et al. (2015), DNA testing is one of the most important aspects of criminal investigation as the DNA found in crime scenes can be used against a criminal or protect an innocent victim by resolving the crime. In the article, Mapes et al. (2015) describes the study that was conducted in order to ensure the effectiveness of DNA testing. Amongst many case files, 243 cases were selected to use in the study. These cases contained DNA evidences which

Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

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.

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

The first case that used DNA analysis was in “1987 in the Florida v. Andrews case, involving a sexual assault. Police in Orlando, Florida, suspected that one man was involved in over twenty cases of breaking and entering, prowling and attempted sexual assault”. By the use of DNA analysis justice was able to bring this perpetrator to a conviction in a court of law for the sexual crimes that he committed. This case was the first of its kind in the U.S. to bring a suspect to a conviction only on DNA profiling. (4)

DNA testing like many other tools in forensics to identify suspects has been through various evaluations to uncover its validity. These evaluations are necessary because the results of DNA testing can help to exclude, include, and can even be used to convict suspects. The weight of DNA testing is heavy in that can be used to alter a person’s life forever,hence, the legal movements for it to be validated. Some believed that the admissibility of DNA testing into the courts would violate privacy rights or could alert criminals to the evidence that could be left behind when they commit a crime. The arguments that

The forensic scientists usually use a variety analytical methods to collect evidence from crime scene, then to determine exactly what happened in there and who may participate in criminal activities. DNA identification is one of the most reliable and powerful tools for forensic investigation to find out criminal. This is because DNA shows the uniqueness of the individual, even “monozygotic twins are genetically not absolutely identical.” (Elmar S. et al, 2013).

In this book, Sheldon and Simoncelli list out concerns for DNA testing. They give background on how DNA databanks were first used for violent criminals and sex offenders, and how it has now changed into holding DNA of people who have not even been convicted. They explain how doing this can infringe on people’s rights. Sheldon and Simoncelli write negatively towards how much time and human resources it takes to re-investigate a case for post-conviction DNA testing. This book is full of information about what is wrong with DNA testing. This should be helpful to argue against post-conviction DNA

The advancement of DNA profiling in the recent decades has globally revolutionized the justice system and significantly changed the course of criminal cases along with it. The application of DNA technology in the identification of biological material has changed forensic biology since it allows for stronger conclusions in identities be made. It essentially creates a link between a suspect and the physical evidence that was retrieved from a crime scene. DNA sampling is considered convenient technology because very little DNA is needed in identifying an individual, and all the while the results

Forensics science has had a huge impact on today's legal system making it much easier to identify and put away criminals. Before being able to identify people by their DNA the court heavily relied on eyewitness accounts. This was not always the best option seeing that these accounts were not always accurate. Now however forensics are able to find out someone's identity through something as simple as a hair follicle. With this new technology not only is it easier prove someone's guilt, it is also easier to prove one's innocence. For example, Kirk Bloodsworth was sentenced two life sentences in prison for murder and sexual assault, and after spending 9 years in prison was exonerated by DNA found at the crime scene proving his innocence. DNA