The National DNA Database

Some reasons to keep DNA databanks is to help exonerate the innocent, and make DNA matching relatively easy. Yes, DNA in a database can make the process of searching for a suspect, or even a victim, much easier. Another way that it could help is that it could actually cut down on wrongly accused “suspects.”

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.

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.

I believe that every state should collect all convicted felons deoxyribonucleic acid and have them on a file because they have broken the law and committed a felony. There are many benefits to collecting DNA from felons, not only does the police department benefit, but the state in general. The police department can benefit by keeping records and tracking and create a safer society. This can lead possibly to solving unsolved crimes that have been committed and have not done justice for. This also benefits the Bureau of Justice Statistics department. Helping the Bureau of Justice Statistics keep track of DNA records could should how much the increase and decrease of crimes that have been committed as a felony over the years. Then studies

The controversy surrounding the issue is that DNA databases can be used to track individuals who have not committed a crime. Some people argue this invades their privacy. Certified people can go through and view anybody’s DNA profile.

Opponents argue that familial DNA searches invades their constitutional right of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. In addition, to being subjected to same equal burdens that convicted offenders would endure. For instance, people whose only fault is having the misfortune of being biologically related to the convicted offender. The innocent suspect would be burdened with a criminal investigation which can disrupt their lifestyles, such as disrupting their work and family relationships. Frederick Bieber, an authority on familial DNA searches and a medical geneticist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston argues that, “There’s no conflict between developing an investigative lead and protecting the privacy and dignity of individuals” (Ed. Louise I, 1). Basically, law enforcement must consider the interests of the innocent family members when they are investigating crimes.

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.

In previous cases, the collection of DNA samples was ruled constitutional by state courts. For instance in the 2004 Maryland v. Raines case, felon Charles Raines was forced to turn in his DNA test, linking him to a sexual assault case. Maryland’s Court of Appeals declared

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

The purpose of this memo is to take a look at recent legislation that passed in two States. The two states we are looking at are Colorado and New York. Some other States have also decided to pass similar legislation. As you may know, these two States have passed legislation to collect DNA from individuals who are convicted of committing a misdemeanor crime. There are also States who have rejected similar legislation. In majority of the United States, States only collect DNA from individuals who are convicted of felony crimes. I will discuss my stance on this issue as we go throughout this memo. I believe that there should be no collection of DNA in misdemeanor convictions.

Have you ever taken into account the fact that all your genetic information could be stored on one database; that at any time you could be identified for every action in a matter of seconds with the click of a button? This notion has caused a large amount of controversy among the global population causing a heated debate regarding the ethicality of having DNA databases. With a large amount of technological advancement and the growing fears of citizens, these DNA databases have started to rise in hopes of benefiting the global population. Critics opposed to this development have pointed out many flaws regarding the idea and continue to promote the restriction of the growth of these types of databases. Through extensive research, the

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.

Even with vast majorities of new technology today, DNA testing still finds people guilty in trials even when they didn’t commit the crime. America is known for having one of the most fair-minded criminal justice systems. We give every person, who is arrested, the chance to be proven innocent until they are found guilty through evidence. Within these trials, DNA tests account for a majority of the convictions or exonerations.

Will the use of forensic DNA in the courts be the equalizer for the wrongly convicted? Per the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been 1,916 exonerations in the United States since 1989 (“National Registry of Exonerations,” n.d.). Barry Scheck and The Innocence Project have been instrumental in facilitating the exoneration process by presenting forensic DNA evidence to American courtrooms. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material that lies within the nucleus of all cells in humans and other living organisms. Each person’s DNA is unique, and only identical twins share the exact DNA (Vocabulary.com, 2016). Quite by accidents, while conducting research in his laboratory, Sir Alec Jeffreys developed the technique for the biological ID of any person using only a tiny sample of their DNA (Royal Society of Biologists, 2016, p. 16). Since the introduction, the use of forensic DNA has manifested a major impact upon the prosecution, juries, and the wrongly convicted in the American Court System.

The stakes are much too high to allow anyone to have a DNA database of everyone. There are chances of information abuse that could create even more work than, to begin with. The probability of something going wrong with the system is far too high. There will always be at least one person that will disagree, and claim that it is an invasion of privacy that will make sure this kind of database never goes through. Taking everyone's DNA is a disaster waiting. There are far too many problems with a DNA database that can