Forensic Databases Have Grown With Our Advancements In

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

suspects in a case, an analyzed DNA sample from the crime scene does not significantly help

In addition to undeserved charges, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of people for crimes in which they were convicted over the past few years. When DNA testing became readily available to the criminal justice system, crucial flaws began to surface. It was realized that people were serving hard-time for felony crimes they didn’t commit.

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

Between 1989 and 2010 a nonprofit watchdog and advocacy group reported that in the state of Illinois 85 people cases we overturned by D.N.A testing. This had cost the taxpayer in Illinois $214 million (Lydersen, 2011). There were overall 316 post-conviction DNA exonerations in this country since 1989, there have been an average of 1 per month (Johnson, 2015). The cost of wrongful conviction is extremely expensive. It cost the citizens of this country to

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

Steinback, R. (2007). The fight for post-conviction DNA testing is not yet over: an analysis of the eight remaining holdout states and suggestions for strategies to bring vital relief to the wrongfully convicted. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1). Retrieved from

Abstract: Over the past twenty years, advancement in DNA technology has directly led to the exoneration of nearly 300 people in the United States. In addition to these scientific advancements, a growing body of literature has focused on the significant roles eyewitness misidentification, so-called “jailhouse snitches,” and false confessions have played in contributing to wrongful convictions in U.S. courts. The aim of this paper is to examine the occurrence of wrongful conviction in criminal trials and the effect of DNA testing on bringing attention to the alarming frequency of these unjust judicial outcomes. Through an examination of previous wrongful conviction research and appellate court rulings, this paper will also explore the extent to which permitting wrongful convictions to be upheld constitutes a violation of civil liberties. Finally, this paper will discuss an important contradiction that advancements in science have exposed within our criminal justice system; while DNA technology and other advanced forensic techniques are increasingly being relied upon to secure criminal convictions, the justice system seems to be correspondingly reluctant to consider these forms of evidence for the

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.

Perhaps the most critical improvement in criminal examination since the happening to one of a kind finger impression ID is the usage of DNA development to convict punks or get rid of persons as suspects. DNA examinations on spit, skin tissue, blood, hair, and semen can now be reliably used to association guilty parties to wrongdoings. Dynamically recognized in the midst of the past 10 years, DNA development is in the blink of an eye by and large used by police, prosecutors, shield course, and courts in the United

In 2009, Alfonso Jay King, Jr. was arrested on serious assault charges. While King was in custody, police collected his DNA by cotton swabbing his cheek. This was authorized by the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA), which permits police to obtain DNA samples from people arrested for, but not yet convicted of, violent crimes. After his DNA was processed, King was connected to an unsolved rape case from 2003 and convicted of rape. In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the lower court’s decision was reversed because King’s right against suspicionless searches outweighed the identification purposes his DNA served in his 2009 case. Yet, the court maintained that the MDCA was constitutional because there are scenarios where DNA would be necessary to identify but not investigate an arrestee. Maryland then called for the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court decision and affirm the constitutionality of the MDCA.

Familial searching is a violation of privacy. Just as how the famous stop-and-frisk was deemed unconstitutional this should be also. From knowing how some law enforcement officers have been corrupt in the past it is hard to believe that with such power of having access to others DNA they are not going to be as corrupt and convict people for crimes they didn’t do, most specifically being people of color. Just as how the stop-and-frisk targeted people of color this too will be just the same. This will cause police officers to have an even worst reputation that they do today, and it will cause distrust and rebel in communities. Just because a family member is a criminal does not mean that the entire family needs to be dragged into that mess,

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.

Baran and Vogel begin by describing the kidnapping case of Jared Scheierl which occurred before Jacob Wetterling’s kidnapping. After 26 years, DNA profiling was used to match DNA from Scheierl’s clothes to Danny Heinrich. The court used Heinrich’s pornography charges to compel him to admit the assault of Scheierl and killing of Wetterling. Baran and Vogel then went to explain how modern DNA analysis worked and the challenges found when a sample contains more than one person’s DNA. This is where DNA analysis can become uncertain. DNA technology can be flawed when there are small samples of mixed DNA or the DNA is damaged or worn out by high temperatures, or prolonged periods in water or the sun. Another reason DNA technology can be flawed is that different labs interpret data differently which causes controversy and in some cases, inconsistent results.

Imagine you get a knock on the door. You open it, hesitant, knowing you have prior convictions, to see multiple police officers and detectives. They invite themselves inside and begin asking you questions about a “cold case” potentially involving a someone in your family. They ask if anyone in your family matches the description of a suspect in the case and if you can provide an alibi for them. After answering their questions, they leave and the next week you find out your brother was arrested for murder; his DNA matched the sample taken from the crime scene. You helped solve a decade-old murder case and turned in your brother simultaneously. This is the result of familial searching.