DNA Fingerprinting
When you were born you were given your own DNA. The genetic information you carry is very similar to your parents. Even though you and your parents have very similar DNA you also have genetic differences, one example is your fingerprint no one but yourself will have your unique fingerprint pattern.
Police use what is called DNA Fingerprinting to extensively investigate crime scenes. DNA in/on a crime scene can be found through the process of DNA Fingerprinting. Police collect evidence from the crime scene to take in for testing. When the testing is complete the police know who the criminal is by their fingerprint. DNA Fingerprinting has also proven effective with miss person cases.
“The concept of DNA profiling was developed by British scientist Alec Jeffreys and first presented to the public by him in 1984.” DNA Fingerprinting has helped solve thousands of murder cases. The first ever use of DNA Fingerprinting was to solve a criminal case that occurred in England in 1987. The case was that two teenage girls were raped and murdered on different dates, in English villages nearby. The first occurrence was in 1983, the second occurrence was in 1986. Police were able to apprehend to criminal [Colin Pitchfork] by obtaining a sample of semen that was left at both crime scenes. DNA Fingerprinting also helps exonerate (to clear or absolve from blame or a criminal charge) people. The first “criminal” to be exonerated was Richard Buckland; he was the primary suspect of a serial murder case. With the use of DNA Fingerprinting the police were able to determine that Buckland committed none of the murders and was set free (DNA Fingerprinting).
“The blotting is procedure is named differently depending on the type of ...
... middle of paper ...
...hese vicious crimes will generate fear amongst civilians and citizens; this will also put much pressure on police departments to distinguish and apprehend the perpetrator(s).
Works Cited
Harding, Lauri Ed. "Using DNA Databases for Targeted Profiling Is Ineffective." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Gale, 2007. Web. 1 Apr. 2014.
Koth, Philip E. "DNA Fingerprinting." Science in Context. Gale, 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Lerner, Lee K., and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. DNA Fingerprinting. 4th ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: n.p., 2008. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Post, Steven G. "DNA Typing." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Gale, 1999. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Robinson, Richard. "Blotting." Science in Context. Gale, 2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
"Southern Blot Method." Southern Blot Method. Department of Biology, Davidson College, 2001. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,483,906 offender profiles and 324,318 forensic profiles as of June 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). It has been suggested by Froomkin, a Senior Washington Correspondent, that the FBI is “shifting its resources from forensics to feeding the database” (Froomkin, 2010). This dramatic shift curtails some of the benefits of the CODIS application to the criminal justice system, as the backlogs of DNA samples increase and the statutes of limitations grow nearer and nearer on unsolved crimes.
“DNA samples of semen retrieved from the crime scene matched blood drawn from Andrews. At that time, no state had a DNA databank. However, after witnessing the power of DNA evidence, state courts and state legislatures would soon grapple with the issue of whether DNA evidence should be admitted at trial as identity evidence and whether establishing state DNA databanks would be feasible and of value to law enforcement. A review of current law reveals that almost every state has embraced and institutionalized the utilization of DNA fingerprinting for crime fighting purposes” (Hibbert,
Nowadays, DNA is a crucial component of a crime scene investigation, used to both to identify perpetrators from crime scenes and to determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence (Butler, 2005). The method of constructing a distinctive “fingerprint” from an individual’s DNA was first described by Alec Jeffreys in 1985. He discovered regions of repetitions of nucleotides inherent in DNA strands that differed from person to person (now known as variable number of tandem repeats, or VNTRs), and developed a technique to adjust the length variation into a definitive identity marker (Butler, 2005). Since then, DNA fingerprinting has been refined to be an indispensible source of evidence, expanded into multiple methods befitting different types of DNA samples. One of the more controversial practices of DNA forensics is familial DNA searching, which takes partial, rather than exact, matches between crime scene DNA and DNA stored in a public database as possible leads for further examination and information about the suspect. Using familial DNA searching for investigative purposes is a reliable and advantageous method to convict criminals.
Hines, Nico. “Father of DNA evidence, Sir Alec Jeffreys, calls for database to be cut”. The Times. 10 Sept 2009. Web.
In 1989 the National Research Council Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science was developed due to numerous scientific and legal issues (The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence). The National Research Council’s key role was to analyze statistical and population genetic issues in the use of DNA evidence and review major alternative approaches to statistical evaluation of DNA evidence (The Evaluation of Forensic DNA, 50). Over the past fifteen years DNA profiling has made tremendous advancements and continuous improvements in the fight against violent
DNA is a vital tool in forensic medicine, when it comes to tracking down that killer or finding that liar in the courtroom. However, DNA fingerprinting for example is also used to identify what a person did based off of their remains. “The U.S. military takes blood and saliva samples from every recruit so it can identify victims of mass disasters such as airplane crashes.” (Marieb, 2009, p.459). After the 9/11 attacks,
Kolata, Gina. "DNA Tests Provide Key to Cell Doors for Some Wrongly Convicted Inmates." The New York Times
In 1893, Francis Galton introduced a remarkable new way to identify people ("Fingerprinting" pg 1 par 3). His observation that each individual has a unique set of fingerprints revolutionized the world of forensics. Soon, all investigators had adapted the idea to use fingerprints as a form of identification. Unfortunately, over the course of the past century, criminals have adapted to this technique and seldom leave their incriminating marks at the crime scene. Forensics specialists were in need of a new way to identify criminals, and DNA provided the answer. When it comes to genetic material, it is virtually impossible for a criminal to leave a crime scene "clean." Whether it is a hair, flakes of skin, or a fragment of fingernail, if it contains genetic material then it has potential to incriminate. However, there are still concerns regarding DNA fingerprinting. What are the implications of using these tests in a courtroom scenario? What happens when DNA tests go awry? It is debatable whether or not DNA fingerprinting has a place in America's court systems.
Having the ability to identify types of prints and surfaces, and the corresponding techniques to develop the prints, has helped crime scene investigators identify criminals and victims of scenes, and aided in the prosecution of defendants in the criminal justice system. Although the history and techniques go far beyond what was discussed in these few pages, it is important as a law enforcement officer or investigator to understand the very basics of how fingerprint identification began, and the simple techniques used to develop them today.
DNA testing is one of forensic sciences core techniques. Everyone has there own individual DNA profile, even identical twins. DNA is in every cell of our body. In the 1980s, a British scientist named Sir Alec Jeffery's, developed DNA profiling. Our DNA can be separated from human cells found at a Crime Scene, with perspiration, blood, skin, the roots of hair, semen, mucus, and saliva. The Colin Pitchfork case was the first murder conviction established on DNA profiling evidence.
Once a crime has been committed the most important item to recover is any type of evidence left at the scene. If the suspect left any Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) at the crime scene, he could then be linked to the crime and eventually charged. A suspect’s DNA can be recovered if the suspect leaves a sample of his or her DNA at the crime scene. However, this method was not always used to track down a suspect. Not too long ago, detectives used to use bite marks, blood stain detection, blood grouping as the primary tool to identify a suspect. DNA can be left or collected from the hair, saliva, blood, mucus, semen, urine, fecal matter, and even the bones. DNA analysis has been the most recent technique employed by the forensic science community to identify a suspect or victim since the use of fingerprinting. Moreover, since the introduction of this new technique it has been a la...
"Using DNA to Solve Crimes." U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. (September 9, 2014). Web. 29 May 2015.
Crime is a common public issue for people living in the inner city, but is not limited to only urban or highly populated cities as it can undoubtedly happen in small community and rural areas as well. In The Real CSI, the documentary exemplified many way in which experts used forensic science as evidence in trial cases to argue and to prove whether a person is innocent or guilty. In this paper, I explained the difference in fingerprinting technology depicted between television shows and in reality, how DNA technology change the way forensics evidence is used in the court proceedings, and how forensic evidence can be misused in the United States adversarial legal system.
Crime investigators have the job to solve crime and find the suspect responsible. Sometimes the offense is very difficult to solve, but with the right pieces of evidence and tools, the investigation can be answered a little more easily. The use of fingerprints is a main tool used at crime scenes. Investigators find these at the actual crime scene and analyze them at the lab to determine whom the prints belong to. Each person has an individual print which is why this is a very useful piece of evidence. Sir Francis Galton found that the prints could be categorized into different types as well as different groups. The research of fingerprints from decades before has shaped the way detectives identify suspects and victims.
...igators a lot about a perpetrator it can not tell them his name, where he lives or if he has a previous criminal record. While DNA profiling is not the only forensic tool available, DNA testing technology and improved databases are inspiring investigators and law enforcement agencies to re-open cases that were previously considered unsolvable.