The Blurry Lines and Laws of DNA Fingerprinting Crime solving has come a long way since the P.I days, and with the extreme advances in biology and the sciences, forensics has integrated itself into criminology with a fervor. Starting around the 1980’s Scientist Sir Alec Jeffreys and his team first derived the process of DNA fingerprinting and realized the incredible tool they had at their disposal for anything from paternity testing to DNA evidence comparison at crime scenes. After Jeffreys’ DNA fingerprinting was used to put away a dangerous criminal with matched evidence, the process evolved using the technology of Poly Chain Reaction (PCR) and Gel Electrophoresis (The history of genetic fingerprinting). With this relatively easy system of DNA fingerprinting and the very small amount of easily collected DNA that can be used to develop a fingerprint, criminal convictions using DNA evidence and fingerprinting has become an integral part of crime scene investigations. And it was with this increase in dependence upon DNA to solve crimes that the government began to institute more laws surrounding the collection of DNA from individuals facing arrest, convicted or otherwise. While DNA exoneration has come a long way in terms of technological advancements and uses, there is questionability as to what the government is utilizing in requiring mandatory DNA sampling and the further implications upon human rights as DNA becomes a staple of most criminal conviction cases. One of the
This paper explores deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) collection and its relationship to solving crimes. The collection of DNA is one of the most important steps in identifying a suspect in a crime. DNA evidence can either convict or exonerate an individual of a crime. Furthermore, the accuracy of forensic identification of evidence has the possibility of leaving biased effects on a juror (Carrell, Krauss, Liberman, Miethe, 2008). This paper examines Carrells et al’s research along with three other research articles to review how DNA is collected, the effects that is has on a juror and the pros and cons of DNA collection in the Forensic Science and Criminal Justice community.
The Southside Strangler: The Advent of DNA Exploration and Testing Forever Changed the Criminal Justice System
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
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.
Forensic science has become the greatest collective method for intelligence gathering of human identifiers. The forensic sciences are used around the world to resolve civil disputes, to justly the enforcement of criminal laws and government regulations, and to protect public health. Over the years, judges have trusted forensic methods without a second thought. DNA analysis is the most reliable method that forensic has, but how reliable is it? (Jonathan Jones, pbs). According to a group called The Innocence Project, “Misapplication of forensic science is the second most common contributing factor to wrongful convictions, found in nearly half (46%) of DNA exoneration cases” (Innocence project).
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
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.
This article was written only a little over two months ago, therefore it is still very relevant. The federal laws regarding DNA testing in criminal justice have not changed since this article was written. Madeleine Baran is an
for criminal gain; law enforcement also benefit from the latest technology. DNA is a technology
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
Former attorney General Janet Reno described our system of justice as a search for the truth.(1) Increasingly, the forensic use of DNA technology is an important ally in that search. DNA fingerprinting, better known in the scientific realm as DNA profiling, has given police and the courts a means of identifying the perpetrators of rapes and murders with a very high degree of confidence. However, nine years after its introduction, forensic DNA typing is still used only selectively. This is due to a variety of factors, including the unavailability of forensic typing to local prosecutors, the time required to perform the typing, and the costs of the tests if private laboratories are utilized. Formerly
How has DNA evidence helped to identify innocent people on death row? This research topic addresses questions like how many people have been released on death row, where DNA evidence is found, and how the person looking for the DNA finds it. The researcher has to think in a way if obvious evidence isn’t present at a crime scene, where else can they find evidence? This topic of identifying innocent people on death row is important to research because many people are accused of crimes they haven’t committed and automatically put on death row. When researching this topic DNA evidence could be found as helpful to solve crimes and find out what really happened in a situation. Before DNA evidence most people to be put on death row were identified
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