Disadvantages Of Dna Profiling

This paper examines Carrell et al’s research along with three other scholarly research articles to better understand the effects that the DNA recovered from a crime scene has on a particular case and the forensic science community.

DNA analysts have been profiling DNA since 1985. Then in 1998, the Combined DNA Index System became fully operational (“FAQs” 2010). CODIS’s three levels are the national level, the state level, and the local level. As September 2015, there is 14,740,249 DNA profiles in CODIS (“CODIS”, n.d.). Since everybody has different DNA, except identical twins, DNA analysts have been able to assists with investigator to determine between who is guilty and who is innocent. With some of their findings, they are able to exonerate individuals, who have been wrongfully convicted. Even though television may make DNA analysts’ life look simple on the screen, it is not. There is need for interest and education. Lastly, the actual job that entails for the DNA

. DNA profiling was first introduced to the criminal justice field in the mid-1980’s (DNA Initiative). DNA profiling was first described in 1984 by Alec Jeffreys, a geneticist at the University of Leicester in Britain (Aronson, 7). Dr. Jeffreys found that the genes that have no function, called “junk DNA” is where most of the variation is used for DNA profiling (Aronson 9). This region contains DNA sequences that repeat over and over again. Alec Jeffreys determined that the number of repeated sections at different locations vary from individual to individual (DNA Initiative). Consequently these repetitive regions became known as “variable number of tandem repeats” or VNTR’s.

Privacy is also another big issue surrounding the plans for a database. Chairman of the New South Wales privacy council says that the prospect of a genetic database is a “cavalier disregard for people’s privacy”

forensic identification technique today1. It is the case of analyzing and profiling a DNA sample

Behavioural privacy also plays a significant role in genetic profiling, as it is a technology which is frequently being enhanced, requiring constant review and law reform, ensuring that justice will be present, both presently and in the future, to protect the rights of each individual. Behavioural privacy refers to the use of genetic profiling predicting the past in an inadequate, unjust manner, as to restrict the confidentiality of individuals. Issues on genetic profiling, specifically behavioural privacy have arisen and been expressed in an article titled ‘Call to control police use of DNA’, as Associate Professor Jeremy Gans, of Melbourne Law School says ''Australian legislation leaves rape victims, just like their rapists, exposed to investigation aimed at determining their connection with any unsolved crime on a jurisdiction's DNA database''. This is present, as the Crimes Act 1914, division 7A section 23XX, part two, which states that inadmissibility of evidence from improper forensic procedures etc., does not apply where “(a) a provision of this Part required forensic material to be destroyed; and

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.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

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

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.

Basically, our DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is our genes, and every person, except for twins, are born with a different DNA profile and that is in a giant database, containing every DNA profile of every person in the world. DNA testing started in 1985 by scientist Alec Jeffreys and was first used to solve a crime a year later. Before 1985 DNA evidence could not be used in court because it wasn’t invented yet, this increased the number of wrongful convictions which would have been prevented using DNA analysis. However, DNA analysis can still be used to solve crimes that occurred prior to the invention of DNA analysis, with a sufficient amount of DNA to be analyzed of course, which is a very small amount. Only a small amount of DNA is needed to find out who it belongs to, it can be found in blood, saliva, finger residue, hair, skin, semen and more.

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 profiling technologies have had a considerable impact on how forensic science and criminal investigation have been understood, carried out, and regulated in the last 25 years. Current methods of forensic DNA profiling (known also as DNA fingerprinting and DNA typing), based on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplifications of a varying number of Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci found at different locations on the human genome, are regularly described as constituting the “gold standard for identification” in contemporary society. Prior to the implementation of PCR based extraction and amplification methods in the 1990’s, the initial uses of DNA fingerprinting (based on Multiple and Single Locus Probes) were largely confined to reactive

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