Pros And Cons Of Keeping Dna Databanks

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.

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

A DNA databank is a collection of DNA samples. These samples can be cross-referenced with other DNA samples to determine if they originated from the same person in case of rape or murder where DNA can be recovered from the crime scene. They controversy surrounding this issue is that some citizens feel as if this idea is unsafe due to hackers and that this can be considered an invasion of privacy.

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.

Mr. Kuykendall, I strongly agree with your perspective. This is a major issue. This consisted of several factors, mainly due to past errors, whereas DNA was tainted in order to get an illegal conviction. There are good points and bad points. There needs to be several protocols and stipulations before each individual DNA should be taken. This invasion violates one's Fourth Amendment Right to privacy. If the government requires that all U.S. citizens have their DNA in the data base, there need to be more steps put in place for this procedure. Human errors could be the link to the wrong person being accused of a crime.

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

DNA is one of the most important pieces of evidence that a criminal justice agent can use in a court of law. There ae slim to no crimes committed that doesn’t have some type of DNA evidence left behind. Some DNA evidence could be, but not limited to, fingerprints, blood, hair, and any other bodily fluids. DNA is known as Deoxyribonucleic Acid, and is one of two types of molecules that encode genetic information (Medicine.net, 2017). DNA is characteristically unique to each person individually, unless they are a twin. DNA dictates a person’s look such as their eye color, blood type, height, hair color, skin color, etc. With this genetic information, intense testing can be done to find who may be connected to the genetic makeup of each stand

Currently, the DNA examined and recorded for forensic purposes does no reveal the most personal of these details but the technology for doing this exists or is likely to exist in the future. The ability to use DNA to make family connection is currently the main issue raised by the use of DNA technology in law enforcement, which is bound to result in futuristic invasion of privacy or possible harassment of those who happen to be family members of possible

DNA profiling has several advantages in helping solve crimes, however, there are still disadvantages to this technique. DNA profiling can be beneficial, as well as detrimental to the society we live in. DNA profiling has become the most widely used tool in the field of forensics because of the advantages it has to offer, although there are some drawbacks when it comes to utilizing this technique. DNA profiling has greatly enhanced law enforcement investigation by helping determine the suspect in a criminal investigation, minimizing the amount of unjustified arrests, and by overturning wrongful guilty sentencing. While DNA profiling has advantages in the field of forensics, it also has disadvantages. A few of the key disadvantages of DNA profiling are easy contamination, wrongful convictions, and access to and use of data.

Though there are many arguments against having a DNA database there are also reasons to have a DNA database. DNA is one of the leading factors in putting criminals behind bars. When DNA is evident in a criminal case, it makes that case a lot stronger. With a database of all citizens DNA it can help law enforcement catch criminals to make communities safer. DNA will not only be able to help solve crimes ongoing now and for the future but to help solve past crimes. DNA also allows for scientist to use the valuable information for research to get a better understanding of health and safety for individuals and to help link people who have the same medical condition. With an entire database of all people, it allows for the system to not be discriminatory. Minorities make up the vast majority of the criminal justice system. With every race, gender and ethnicity in the system it opens up the ability for all people to be at risk for being in the system with DNA placing them for a crime and making it harder to get away with one. There is also a possibility that having a DNA database will lower crime rates. People who feel they can get away with crimes now, will have a higher chance of getting caught. Those who fear getting caught because the government and police agencies have their DNA will be less likely to commit crimes. Mark Kleiman a professor who deals with criminal justice stated, “DNA databases reduce crime rates,

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

DNA fingerprinting is important in many different fields of study today, including forensic science. One case in which DNA fingerprinting was especially important was the O.J. Simpson case. According to New York Times in 1994, if the DNA tests were done correctly they “could establish Mr. Simpson’s innocence or convince a jury that he is guilty.” Basically, testing Simpson’s DNA and comparing it to the DNA found at the crime scene could greatly sway the jury’s decision on whether Simpson was guilty or not. This case was a very famous and popular, so introducing DNA evidence in a trail like this would bring much attention to the methods of DNA testing and how accurate the results were. Before this case took place, it was thought of as a possible

“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

According to Robert Dominique and Dufresene Martin, writing in a New Genetics & Society article, DNA meaning deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material present in all living organisms. DNA and DNA databanks are major forms of evidence in the investigation process and in the discovery of the guilt or innocence. According to Robert and Martin, since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, states require offenders convicted of certain crimes to provide DNA samples; this preventing the offenders from committing new crimes because they know they can be caught again due to their DNA samples registered in the system. In 1999, New York police authorities linked a man through the use of DNA samples to 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had troubled the