Why Is Dna Testing Wrong

Every year, hundreds of people get convicted wrongly as a result of criminal proceedings that are rooted in miscarriage of justice. The defendants are convicted for crimes not committed where errors are not proven until their death or having served a lot of jail time. Wrongful convictions are fueled by false witnesses, incompetence of defense lawyers and inadequate evidence among others. However, with the emergence of forensic DNA in collection of evidence, the rate of wrongful convictions has decreased in the past few years. This paper focuses on the fallibilities that lead to miscarriage of justice and what role technology has played in correcting and mitigating the previously erroneous judicial 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 exonerations are very common. So much so that in the United States alone, there have been “317 post-conviction DNA exonerations” (2014). The very first DNA exoneration dated back to 1989. The Innocence Project examined these DNA exonerations and found that “8 of the 317 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. Another 16 were charged with capital crimes but not sentenced to death” (2014). More so, the average time served was about 13.5 years, and the average age was 27 (2014). This means that before the age of

Well, in nearly 25 years since post-conviction DNA evidence has been used to demonstrate criminal innocence, even in cases that landed defendants on death row or in prison for life. Eyewitness misidentification, forensic science errors, false confessions, government misconduct and bad lawyering are many of the reasons wrongful convictions occur. Eyewitness being the most common. Sometimes it can be done by error and other times it is actually done intentionally. In seventy-seven percent of the DNA exonerations, eyewitness misidentification led to wrongful convictions (The Innocence Project- How wrongful conviction happen).

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

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

Every time an innocent person is exonerated based on DNA testing, law enforcement agencies look at what caused the wrongful convictions. There are many issues that contribute to putting guiltless lives behind bars including: eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, imperfect forensic science, and more (Gould and Leo 18). When a witness is taken into a police station to identify a suspect, it is easy for their memories to be blurred and their judgment influenced. This can lead the witness to identify a suspect who is actually innocent. Flawed forensic science practice also contributes to wrongful imprisonments. In the past, analysts have been inaccurate due to carelessness, testified in court presenting evidence that was not based

We do not now how many innocent individuals are currently imprisoned, but we have an idea of the number of people who have been exonerated of crimes for which they were convicted. The National Registry of Exonerations has identified 1491 men and women who have been exonerated from state facilities since 1989 in the United States (University of Michigan Law School, 2015). From 2005 to 2014, there was an average of 64 exonerations from state facilities per year, with exonerees serving an average of twelve years. The Innocence Project (2015), which takes cases in which DNA analysis can be used to prove a prisoner is innocent, has secured 329 post-conviction DNA exonerations and is actively working on 250-300 cases.

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 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.

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.

One of the faults with evidence is that DNA could be missing from the crime scene, and if worse comes to shove, if there is DNA then it is mishandled by someone which would fracture the evidence as solid as in the article “DEATH PENALTY: DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed written by IPS Correspondents. This would be true as not only would the evidence be tampered with, no one would be able to tell on who it was and they would either let the man go who was the actual convict or give up and simply use the innocent person as a scapegoat. Not only that, but those who are innocent would at times plead guilty, as written by Eric Ferrero in his article “U.S. Supreme Court Decision on DNA Testing Is Disappointing But Will Have Limited Impact, Innocence

DNA testing can change the whole outcome of a criminal case. An interesting case that occurred in Illinois named “Innocence on death row” is just one example. When Illinois Governor George Ryan asked that DNA testing be applied to death row inmates in 1998 they found that 13 out of 25 inmates could be discharged for some of their crimes by the results that were found in the DNA testing. That is just one example of how DNA testing can change the outcome of a case.

There are often mistakes made that falsely determine an individual’s sentence. Sloppy police work and loss of documents are examples of careless errors. There is also some room for error with determining the results of a DNA sample that do not fall under the human error category. Many times there may not be ample DNA samples at a crime scene. Only a fraction of crimes reveal DNA. Drive-by shootings and bombings often do not provide DNA for investigation purposes. “There is a public perception that DNA is the cure-all for these kinds of mistakes. DNA is not the whole answer.” (Dieter, Richard) Eye witnesses cannot solely and accurately determine a person’s fate 100 percent of the time. There are numerous amounts of cases in which those found guilty were indeed later found innocent. Many times, these individuals have already served time in jail. Many argue that the time inmates spend in

As insignificant as 4% may seem, it has a very large impact on forensics and the entire criminal justice system. When DNA tests become invalidated, the test can no longer be relied on to be accurate. Forensics relies on the total accuracy of their test. When a test’s accuracy cannot be verified, it cannot be used as evidence. With all of the data that laboratories have to process, how can the accuracy of the data be checked?