Dna Profiling Case Study

The Southside Strangler: The Advent of DNA Exploration and Testing Forever Changed the Criminal Justice System

. 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.

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

In November of 1983, 15 year old Lynda Mann was found raped and murdered on a deserted road, and although police were able to obtain a semen sample from her murderer the case remained unsolved. In 1986 the killer struck again murdering 15 year old Dawn Ashworth, once again leaving behind semen, but this time the police were able to use DNA profiling to match the semen to a suspect. Colin Pitchfork became the first person to be caught based on mass DNA screening, and the first to be convicted based on DNA profiling. The use of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) in the criminal justice system has greatly tipped the scales in favor of law enforcement, and changed the world that we live in. Court cases that in the past relied heavily on eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence now have science to back them up. DNA analysis has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and even though there are some flaws, the use of DNA evidence should continue to be used by law enforcement.

The first DNA-based conviction in the United States occurred shortly after in 1987 when the Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida, convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape after DNA tests matched his DNA from a blood sample with that of semen traces found in a rape victim (Calandro, 2005). It was two years later that DNA was again ruled admissible in a Virginia state ruling. In the years that followed the use of DNA in trial proceeding was not disputed. It was not until the technique of obtaining the evidence was more largely used did the practice become questionable.

After the United States of America took a stand in proving the innocents free of their charge, the United Kingdom also found a committee regarding DNA profiling in the court. Michael Shirley was an 18 year old Royal Navy sailor when he was arrested in 1987 for the murder of Linda Cook — a young woman who had been raped and then killed by her assailant stamping violently on her head and neck (Johnson, P., & Williams, R. 2004). This is the first case reported in United Kingdom that involved DNA profiling. This case proved to be a successful appeal against the convicted and an answer to the imprisoned offender. This also described testing as an unforeseen consequence, but most certainly a welcomed one. DNA profiling does not prove Shirley’s innocence; on the contrary it is the expert testimony, about semen retention and vaginal drainage, combined with the

This heartbreaking story proves the need for a database consisting of DNA from all citizens. One benefit of having a larger DNA database is it can prove if someone committed a crime (Your Genome, 2015). Not only that, but many suspects of one crime are guilty of committing others. The

The authors’ state that over the last decade, “forensic DNA testing has been used to exonerate people who were convicted of crimes they did not commit, and the vast

Deoxyribonucleic acid profiling also commonly known as DNA is a biotechnological science, a forensic technique used to identify individuals by using their genetic sequencing, although most people have the same DNA they have different regions within their sequencing that makes them individual. Profiling is not only used for fingerprinting it is used to analyse saliva, skin tissue, blood, hair and semen. The procedure of DNA profiling is used to identify criminals, disaster victims and one’s pedigrees through paternity tests.

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 (Phillips, 2008). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Phillips, 2008). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Lewis, 1989).

“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

As it gradually progresses to be a more improved and powerful tool in the Criminal Justice system, it should inarguably be believed that this form of forensic evidence remains as the only reliable source for providing just outcomes in a case. This technique can be discerningly used to identify criminals and exonerate wrongly-accused individuals with tremendous accuracy due to DNA’s biology to pinpoint specific suspects, it’s unique processes and the many databases it possesses. With all things considered, DNA technology has become increasingly vital to provide fairness and accuracy in the Criminal

Since its discovery in the 1980’s, the application of DNA has been utilized in many ways. When Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA is examined, a precise decoding of genetic information is revealed. With the exception of identical twins, every person’s genetic code (commonly referred to as a Genetic Fingerprint) is inherited and unique. From Maury advising men everyday on TV “You ARE the Father!” or “You are NOT the Father!” to learning the descendents of former slaves are related to President Thomas Jefferson, we have come to rely upon and expect the accuracy of DNA.

The American system of justice is predicated on the search for justice. The emergence of DNA evidence as a source of evidence in this search has become a powerful ally for both the prosecution and defense in criminal trials and there has been no clear cut advantage gained by either side of the equation. The use of DNA evidence, often referred to as DNA profiling, has given police and prosecutors a new, and more reliable, means of identifying criminal but the cost of the procedure, the time involved, and the general unavailability of labs to perform the testing has caused DNA profiling to be used sparingly. On the opposite side of the ledger, DNA profiling has also allowed criminal defense lawyers and defendants to eliminate themselves from suspicion it has also served as a means of exoneration. While DNA profiling has obvious advantages, there remains doubt as to its wide scale use and how it will eventually be used by the criminal justice system. Experts in the field foresee the strong possibility of abuse in the use of DNA evidence and profiling and there are also moral and ethical issues being discussed (Walsh, 2005).

Forensics has been greatly enhanced by technology. DNA profiling is one of the technologies that has influenced efficiency and credibility of forensic evidence. The FBI first started using DNA in one of its cases in 1988. In Europe, the United Kingdom opened a DNA database in 1955 (Milena, 2006). The main use of the DNA is to compare the evidence collected at crime scene with the suspects. In addition, it helps to establish a connection between the evidence and the criminals. The investigations have been simplified through the use of technology and DNA has been one of the most effective methods in investigations.