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. Keywords: deoxyribonucleic acid, United States …show more content…
Palermo explains the “…means of impeding the presentation of sloppy scientific evidence is found Federal Rule of Evidence 403 that gives judges the discretion to admit or to exclude from trial evidence, including scientific, deemed to prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to jurors” (2006). The article then explains that the technical terms used in the trial court while presenting the DNA analyses, is many times too complex for the individuals sitting on the jury. Ultimately, these same jurors are still inclined to reject or accept the facts presented even if they don’t understand the information presented. Palermo also commented on the necessity for better training on the individuals that come in close contact with the collection of DNA evidence, because it’s imperative, as is the training of DNA analysts and others involved with the handling of evidence. The collection of evidence plays a viable role in the process of DNA examination because if evidence isn’t collected properly the evidence could easily be contaminated with other elements from the crime scene. The other elements that may contaminate the crime scene may include but isn’t limited to: officers responding to the crime scene, paramedics, and other emergency personnel that come in contact with important …show more content…
This same article examines the history of DNA evidence and acknowledges that when evidence was first introduced to the courts that the new type of identification was initially accepted without any challenges, however, critics quickly contended that DNA tests were problematic because of the reliability and the validity of probative value of the evidence. For example, DNA exoneration cases suggest that errors in forensic identification led to a high number of wrongful convictions and concerns that media coverage portrayals of forensic science evidence on popular television shows leads jurors to unfairly weigh DNA evidence while making their decision about the facts of a trial (Carrell, 2008). Moreover, in recent DNA exoneration cases the courts and jurors had difficulty analyzing the testimony of the experts on forensic identification evidence. According to the article, in 86 DNA exoneration cases, forensic science testing errors were the second leading cause of wrongful conviction, falling behind wrongful eyewitness misidentification (Carrell,
As we learned this week, DNA databases are used by various governmental agencies for several different purposes. We all have seen new magazine shows such as, 20/20 or Dateline, that show the collection of DNA samples from suspects in a case that is compared to those collected at the scene of the crime. But what happens when the sample is an incomplete match, compromised, or contaminated? The answer is the wrongful conviction of innocent citizens. The case that I have decided to highlight, is the wrongful conviction of Herman Atkins. In 1986, Atkins was convicted of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of oral copulation, and robbery in the state of California. It was alleged that Herman entered a shoe store, and raped, beat, and robbed a
“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
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.
Thompson, W. C. (1996). DNA Evidence in the O.J. Simpson Trial. University of Colorado Law Review, 827-857.
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.
The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the good old days of the Wild West when pretty much anything was legal. Criminals were dealt with in any fashion the law enforcement saw fit. The science of catching criminals has evolved since these days. We are better at catching criminals than ever and we owe this advancement to forensic science. The development of forensic science has given us the important techniques of fingerprinting and DNA analysis. We can use these techniques to catch criminals, prove people's innocence, and keep track of inmates after they have been paroled. There are many different ways of solving crimes using forensic evidence. One of these ways is using blood spatter analysis; this is where the distribution and pattern of bloodstains is studied to find the nature of the event that caused the blood spatter. Many things go into the determination of the cause including: the effects of various types of physical forces on blood, the interaction between blood and the surfaces on which it falls, the location of the person shedding the blood, the location and actions of the assailant, and the movement of them both during the incident. Another common type of forensic evidence is trace evidence. This is commonly recovered from any number of items at a crime scene. These items can include carpet fibers, clothing fibers, or hair found in or around the crime scene. Hairs recovered from crime scenes can be used as an important source of DNA. Examination of material recovered from a victim's or suspect's clothing can allow association to be made between the victim and other people, places, or things involved in the investigation. DNA analysis is the most important part of forensic science. DNA evidence can come in many forms at the crime scene. Some of these forms include hair; bodily fluids recovered at the crime scene or on the victim's body, skin under the victim's fingernails, blood, and many others. This DNA can be the basis of someone's guilt or innocence; it has decided many cases in the twentieth century. As the times continue to change and the criminals get smarter we will always need to find new ways to catch them. Forensic science is the most advanced method yet, but is only the beginning. As the field of science grows so will the abilities of the
DNA profiles can be used to identify individuals, allowing evidence to be used both as a means of convicting the guilty and as a means of exonerating the innocent. People can leave traces of their DNA at a crime scene because it is inside every cell of their body. DNA can be extracted from blood, semen, saliva or hair roots left at a crime scene using a chemical process. Tiny amounts of DNA can be extracted from a single cell – such as cells shed from someone’s skin when they touch an object. Police can also collect biological samples from suspects, usually by scraping some cells from inside their cheek. If the DNA profile from an individual matches the DNA profile from a crime scene it is therefore highly likely that the blood, semen or saliva left at the crime scene came from them. Also, in a paternity test, the mother’s DNA profile is compared with the child’s to find which half was passed on by the mother. The other half of the child’s DNA is then compared with the alleged father’s DNA profile. If they don’t match, the ‘father’ is excluded, which means he isn’t the father of that child. If the DNA profiles match, the ‘father’ is not excluded - which means there is a high probability that he is the father. In both of these cases, the DNA profile is much like a “genetic fingerprint”, and if there are records kept such as birth certificates and social security numbers, then DNA profiles make just as much sense to keep.
The collection of DNA in an investigation is used most often to determine who the perpetrator(s) might be in a crime. There has been a rapid growth since its inception and legal and ethical issues have arisen. In the Double –Helix Double-Edged ...
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.
The theory of DNA, simply stated, is that an individual’s genetic information is unique, with the exception of identical twins, and that it “definitively links biological evidence such as blood, semen, hair and tissue to a single individual” (Saferstein, 2013). This theory has been generally accepted since the mid-80s throughout the scientific community and hence, pursuant to the 1923 Frye ruling, also deemed admissible evidence throughout our justice system.
Each laboratory has its own standard and guidelines rather than having uniformity across the industry. This allows one forensic labs results to be different to another’s based on their own individual practices. The standards and guidelines for the checking of forensic laboratories varies from state to state and the inspection is peer assessed. This is a problem as the auditing of the labs may be subject to bias rather than using an independent authority. Lab test guidelines might not result in all evidence having to be reported. For example, the Waring case in Western Australia, where a young man was charged with rape because the lab failed to report that more than Waring’s DNA was found in the victim’s rape kit. According to this lab’s approved guidelines – low levels of DNA below a certain point found, do not have to be reported (7). The issue of what standard was being used was not evident in this case. If the guidelines had required the forensic scientist to reveal even the very low samples of a second male’s DNA, the jury may not have convicted an innocent person (8). When the professionals get it wrong, and they do, their authority and their power alters the lives of innocent people. Pressure can be placed on forensic scientists and technicians. So when something doesn’t fit with what has been predicted, it has been known that tampering of evidence can occur. Forensic science requires
Singer, Julie A. "The Impact Of Dna And Other Technology On The Criminal Justice System: Improvements And Complications."Albany Law Journal Of Science & Technology 17.(2007): 87. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
The typical patterns of genetic profiles are produced by electrophoresis of treated samples of DNA. This patterns may be called fingerprints. In criminal investigations, there are tested about 10 sites of the DNA. If the banding patterns produced by the tested DNA samples of a suspect in a crime, and the samples taken from the crime scene are the same, it is enough evidence for convicting a suspect and taking him to jail. The 99% of human DNA is exactly the same for all the people, even though, a single droplet of blood, or an eyelash collected in a crime scene, contains all the genetic information needed of every single person in the world, to convict a criminal. DNA profiling has have a huge impact in many things, from the...
Proponents of expanding the use of DNA tests in the legal arena like to point out that these tests will exonerate truly innocent individuals. DNA tests have exonerated some wrongly imprisoned people but it is disingenuous to think this is the real reason for growing use of DNA tests. The real reason for all of this is, of course, to help prosecutors obtain more convictions. It is thus worth keeping in mind that the criminal justice system currently reflects deep class and race biases. Journalist and attorney David Cole argues persuasively in his recently published book No Equal Justice that this is no accident. Rather law enforcement, the legal system, and the prison system operate in a way that insures the disproportionate imprisonment of poor people and people of color. If the government only conducts DNA tests of people convicted of crimes, it will fortify and expand this already unfair process.
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.