Recognized as the greatest breakthrough in forensic science since fingerprinting, DNA analysis has made a dramatically positive impact on criminal investigations. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the basic genetic code within each cell that determines a person's phenotype and genotype. Since the early 1980s, DNA testing has been used in genetic disease research, finding matches for transplants, and in anthropological investigations.1 Typically in forensics, DNA analysis is used on specimen samples such as blood, hair, or semen that are left at a crime scene. This new technology has opened many doors to new methods and techniques in forensic genetics. Using techniques such as PCR and STR, analysts are able to create DNA profiles and easily compare …show more content…
Underlying issues with invasiveness, reliability and use of databases shed light on possible ethical dilemmas. Arguments of DNA analysis being invasive are due to the common theme of DNA being collected without consent. Because of this dilemma, there are numerous legal considerations with respect to collecting DNA specimens from a suspect. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is one of these. Accordingly, law enforcement officials may be required to obtain a search warrant prior to obtaining a blood sample.1 To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement officials are required to establish probable cause to conclude that the suspect has committed a crime. There is a broad consensus amongst analysts that the reliability of DNA profiling relatively high. However, since the results of DNA analysis are often reported as probabilities, there is some room for debate on its factual accuracy.1 Many studies have been performed to put doubts to rest, including a accuracy study performed by a team of Yale University geneticists. The results determined that the tests, when properly executed and read, provide a precise means of identification, even when including individuals of the same ethnic group.1 Given the high probability of recidivism associated with violent crime, the possible benefits of creating DNA databanks from a law enforcement perspective are irrefutable.1 With DNA databanks in place, investigators will be able to identify suspects based upon specimens found at crime scenes. The DNA test results from a crime scene could be digitized and compared with the digital record of DNA specimens held in the databank.1 Critics of the DNA database concept fear that such databanks could be used in an abusive manner to target certain individuals or that the maintenance of such databanks ultimately has a "dehumanizing" effect on both the individuals whose information is in the databank
In today’s modern age science is moving at a rapid pace; one of those scientific fields that has taken the largest leaps is that of genetics. When genetics first comes to mind, many of us think of it as a type of science fiction, or a mystical dream. Yet genetics is here, it is real, and has numerous ethical implications.
DNA is the blueprint of life. It stores our genetic information which is what is in charge of how our physical appearance will look like. 99.9% of human DNA is the same in every person yet the remaining .1% is what distinguishes each person (Noble Prize). This small percentage is enough to make each person different and it makes identifying people a lot easier when its necessary. DNA not only serves to test relationships between people it also helps in criminal cases. DNA testing in criminal cases has not been around for many years if fact it was not until the early 1990s when the use of DNA testing for criminal cases was approved and made available. By comparing the DNA of a suspect and that found in the crime scene a person can either be convicted of a crime or they can be exonerated. This method of testing gained more publicity in the 1984 case of Kirk Noble Bloodsworth a man who had been convicted of the rape and first degree murder of a nine year old girl in Maryland. His case was a milestone in the criminal justice system since it involved the use of new technology and it also raised the question of how many people had been wrongly incarcerated for a crime they did not commit.
. 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, there has been a large number of individuals released or convicted of crimes based on DNA left at the crime scene. DNA is the abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.
Steinhauer J. “Grim Sleeper” Arrest Fans Debate on DNA Use. The New York Times [Internet]. 2010 [cited 21 May 2012]; N page. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09sleeper.html?pagewanted=all.
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.
Gest, Ted. " DNA "Fingerprinting " is Facing a Major Legal Challenge from Defense Attorneys and Civil Libertarians."
DNA analysis is a scientific process among the newest and most sophisicated of techniques used to test for genetic disorders, which involves direct examination of the DNA molecule itself (Lyman, 2014) . Today crime labs use mtDNA analysis. This type of analysis allows smaller degraded pieces of DNA to still be successfully tested (Lyman, 2014) . There are several steps taken when analyzing DNA in forensics. When testing scientists must first isolate the DNA so it is not contaminated and can't be used. Lab technicians the take small pieces of the DNA, conserving as much as they can encase they need to test again. Once testing is done the next step is determining the DNA test results and finally there is the comparison and interpretation of the test results from the unknown and known samples to determ...
Forensic genetics has other applications . The " fingerprint " DNA represents a valuable tool for forensic science . As is the case with an ordinary fingerprint genetic fingerprint is unique to each individual (except identical twins ) . The determination involves the observation of specific DNA sequences which can be obtained from extremely small tissue samples , hair, blood or eventually left at the scene . As Fifty microliters of blood, semen or five microliters of ten roots of hairs are enough , and nozzles secretions and cells from the fetus . In addition to its use in the capture of criminals , especially rapists , the genetic fingerprints can be used to establish family relationships . People involved in the conservation of species use them to be sure that captive breeding is among individuals who do not belong to the same family .
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...
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 ...
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. (2009). DNA Forensics. Retrieved from Human Genome Project Information: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
To determine the balance between privacy and public safety legislation must address many questions including (but not limited to): when is a sample required to be obtained and by whom, is consent required, is force ever acceptable to obtain a sample, and which samples should be retained? Dr Katina Michael has reported that some instances that constitute acceptable DNA sample collection and storage (Table 4). The United States, England and Wales contain legislation that authorizes the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for violations of certain federal criminal laws and inclusion into the national DNA database of all profiles. Primary concerns focus these legal authorizations address privacy of a person and legal search and seizures of biological samples. For many countries like the United States there is a need to enact special legislation which led to delays in the implementation of DNA databases (Goodwin, et al., 2007, p102).
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an acclaimed extraordinary discovery that has contributed great benefits in several fields throughout the world. DNA evidence is accounted for in the majority of cases presented in the criminal justice system. It is known as our very own unique genetic fingerprint; “a chromosome molecule which carries genetic coding unique to each person with the only exception of identical twins (that is why it is also called 'DNA fingerprinting ')” (Duhaime, n.d.). DNA is found in the nuclei of cells of nearly all living things.
Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Butler, 2011). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Using DNA to Solve Crimes, 2014).
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.