Dna Fingerprinting

Though, the chances are small, people have been convicted of crimes who are innocent. DNA databases are used significantly to solve crimes. With solving crimes also comes the chance of putting an innocent person behind bars. Forensics is not always 100% accurate and can be faulty in identifying the wrong person. Sometimes, there are biased forensic analysts that misconstrued evidence and biased police officers in the criminal justice system. An issue with police officers is a cognitive bias called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when someone, such as a police officer receives information on a person, but chooses to throw out the information and rather put their own believes before evidence. If police officers are able to swab DNA when they arrest someone, they could use that DNA to misidentify an individual of a crime. If a DNA database is contaminated with millions of innocent people, the risk of an innocent percent being abused by the system is higher. A big case in the criminal justice system was of the lawyer Brandon Mayfield. His fingerprints were misidentified at a terrorist bombing in Madrid. He had converted to Islam and felt that he was discriminated against, while being held captive for two weeks. He is just one of the many innocent people who have been suspects in criminal cases. In the primary source document The Case Against Expanding Forensic DNA Databases to Innocent

The proposal has sparked a moral dilemma. Victoria has had a DNA database since 1992 with the reasoning that, if a suspect is cleared, their DNA must be erased off the list. However, recently Victorian government has allowed police to collect samples from more suspected criminals, not just those accused of murder, serious assault or rape. Now they are allowed to collect from those accused of drug trafficking, arson causing death and aggravated burglary.

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)

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

If a wrongful conviction occurs nowadays, our greatest chance to prove that it is a wrongful convictions is with DNA

through comparison with the DNA database. It can also be compared to other crime scene

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 is considered an individuals genetic fingerprint, thus it is exclusive to each and every individual. Since this exclusivity exists, DNA is a tool used for identification purposes. It has been utilized for investigations of serious crimes, identification of individuals killed in mass disasters, wars and paternity uncertainties1. Since the inception of the use of DNA in the 1980’s thousands of criminals have been caught and prosecuted with the help of DNA evidence2. Additionally, countless victims of mass disasters have been identified through DNA and returned to their loved ones. Although, there are various benefits to employing DNA it does not come without a sundry of ethical and legal concerns. The ethical concerns that have presented themselves are questions involving scientific reliability, DNA evidence in court, human rights, and finally the other uses of the DNA database.

DNA testing should be awarded to all who claim innocence. It is too expensive to carry out DNA testing for every person who is suspected of a crime. It should be done for those who truly believe they are innocent and have evidence in favor of their claim. According to the Innocence Project, the Justice for All Act was established into federal law in 2004. This law awards federal inmates that claim innocence DNA testing. It also grants funding to the states that give the DNA

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

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

Should Federal Agents be allowed to collect DNA from anyone arrested? This is a controversial issue. In my opinion, DNA is a very powerful and useful tool because many sex crimes go unsolved because of lack of evidence, but if federal agents can look in a database where DNA samples are stored and compare it to anyone who was arrested especially those who committed sex crimes more crimes would be solved. Many say DNA testing violates suspects rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. DNA testing has toppled the way federal agents gather evidence in various criminal cases, particularly assault and homicide and thus had an expansive effect on a lot of people past cases. In this paper I am going to address

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

Criminologists, usually Forensic scientists, collect DNA sources of semen, saliva, hair follicle, body cells, skin, and blood. They must always wear gloves, mask, and use disposable instruments. This help prevents the DNA being contaminated, to where it would not be useable. The collected samples must be bagged and label in envelopes but not plastic bags! Plastic Bags retain moisture that will damage DNA, another reason why DNA must be protected and label is that direst sunlight and weather condition may damage DNA.

DNA fingerprinting is a scientific technology involving the extraction, replication and arrangement of strands of an organism’s DNA. This results in the formation of a genetically distinctive fingerprint that is unique to the organism which the DNA sample was originally extracted from. Because of the specificity of a DNA fingerprint, the application of this technology can have a substantial influence on many aspects of society. Accessibility to a DNA database allows for higher efficiency in forensic investigations, personal identification, maternal and paternal testing. The availability of a national database to police officers and forensic scientists would equate to increased productivity in investigations and prosecution of suspects in a