Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How technology has affected crime investigation
Impact of technology information in criminal justice
Dna crime investigation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How technology has affected crime investigation
They say justice is blind. Or at least they used to. The true role of the judicial system is true justice, and in some cases the system has failed in the past. We do learn, though, and thanks to the latest scientific breakthroughs we now have genomic testing and DNA fingerprinting as widely accepted methods of looking at a crime scene. What was left up to conjecture before can now be verified with great confidence.
In the United States hundreds of individuals have been released from prison, even many from death row after serving time for crimes they did not commit thanks to the nonprofit orginaization called The Innocence Project. Founded in 1996 The Inocent Project uses DNA to exonerate those wrongly convited and incarserated. The Innocence Project is a group of full time lawyers and other staff members who
…show more content…
Tim Masters was 15 years old when Peggy Hettrick's body was found in a field near his home. Masters, while walking to school noticed what he thought was a mannequin laying in the field, he assumed the mannequin was put there as a practical joke, mocking his mother's dealth four years prior. During the investigation Master's father told police about the mannequin. From that point on, Masters was a suspect in Hettrick's murder after police found knives and strange drawings in Master's room, even though there was no evidence linking Masters to Hettrick's murder, and there was no blood found on any of the knives that belonged to Masters. The investigation continued as the years went on, but no solid suspect was ever located. Tim grew up and joined the Navy, in 1992 he told an aquaintance a detail about the murder that had never been released to the public. That brought him right back to the top of the suspects' list, even though he had been told this detail by a friend who had been to the field with her girlscout troop by
In America we believe in the saying “you are innocent until proven guilty” but we the people are remarkably swift to point our fingers at someone we believe that committed the crime. This habit is frequently displayed within our criminal justice system when a crime is committed we quickly assume it has something to do with the first person we can link the crime to. We tend to naturally feel sympathy for the victim therefore; if the individual accuses one for a crime the jury has no reason not to believe the victim. Society does not bother to care if the individual did not do the crime because as long as someone was caught and accused of the wrongdoing, then we the people can proceed on with our lives knowing we punished someone for the crime
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
In conclusion, I think that presented with the different layers discussed above, it is fair to say that there is no clear answer to why anyone should be so quick to bestow judgment on justice without knowing all the evidence.
Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that, “Seventy three percent of the two hundred thirty nine convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony” (Loftus xi). One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This paper will identify a theoretical framework that views eyewitness testimony ...
The Innocence Project, using DNA evidence, has gone back to past cases and exonerated innocent people when they were wrongly convicted. There may be many reasons that several people are wrongly convicted every year. However, there are 6 reasons deemed as the most important regarding wrongful convictions. These reasons are eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions or admissions, government misconduct, informants or snitches, and bad lawyering (understand the causes).
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same”.(Albert Einstein).Many people have different points of view of what is justice of what happens in the courtroom. Opinions have been heard of whether or not DNA evidence should be admissible in murder trials. Not only have people try to introduce this kind of evidence in their case, but some have been trying to avoid of DNA evidence in their case. Like any important matter they all have their own pros and cons to conclude whether or not it’s worth presenting to a courtroom full of juries. It takes hard workers to give background information
Why is it that our justice system uses so little research when there is so much at stake? During my research, I found that the limited extent of research done has caused many innocent human beings to be punished with their entire lives, many years of their lives which they will never get back, and often times they pay with their lives. The frequency of innocent people going in the system, at no fault of their own, and the price they pay brings me to the conclusion that exoneration needs more support from the Innocence Project which would result in less exonerations.
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
There have been several cases in which eyewitness testimony led to the conviction of an innocent person. In one notable case, Raymond Towler was wrongly convicted in 1981 of the rape, kidnap, and assault of an 11-year old girl based on eyewitness testimony in which the victim and other witnesses identified him from a photo. Towler had been serving a life sentence and was released in 2010 after serving nearly 30 years until DNA evidence proved that he did not commit the rape (Sheeran, 2010). In another case, Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl near Baltimore in 1984. Five different eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the scene of crime. After serving nine years in prison on death row, he was released and paid compensation after traces of semen found in the victim’s underwear excluded him as the person responsible for the crime. Although he was released, he was not formally exonerated for another decade until the real killer was found, Kimberly Shay Ruffner. Ruffner was already incarcerated for unrelated crimes and was identified after the DNA sample from the crime scene was added to state and federal databases and came back as a match for him. Despite the fact that Bloodsworth was a completely different height and weight than Ruffner, five eyewitnesses testified that they saw him at the murder scene (Marshall, 2009).
Society today sets the standards for both life and social behavior. If you notice justice is not served by what is truly right and wrong, but instead by what society believes is right and wrong. A magistrate sits behind his bench and conforms to the beliefs of the majority. A jury is drawn from the same pool that follows the not only the majority, but the other members of the jury. Doing so has made society itself Judge, Jury, and executioner. This defeats the whole purpose of Justice. How can we gain the truth of a subject when every investigator is mirroring his colleague? It is the same as if you were digging a hole with two persons, only that one is digging deeper while the other is filling it up. Neither knows what the consequences of their actions, they only know that that both of them are digging, and in their minds that is the "right" thing to do. Whether they accomplish anything at all does not matter, so long as that they feel in their hearts that they are pursuing what is right.
With all these possible flaws in the testimony of witnesses and victims why do they continue to use them as primary evidence in criminal cases? The answer is simple; until recently there was no other way to prove whether or not a person was actually at the scene of a crime unless someone saw them or they left some finger prints behind that the police were able to link back to someone, which may have not been left on the victim but in the general vicinity. Until recently, with the recent breakthrough in DNA testing which allows police and investigators to gain an exact match as to who committed the crime.
The theories of Anderson, Hogg,Walker and Wilson are justified opinions and could be advantageous to the criminal justice system. However, even if these theories are implemented into our society, corruption will still always occur. Unfortunately, it is just part of human nature. It is futile to establish new methods of judgement without considering the fact that corruption occurs throughout all levels of society. Juries, police, and lawyers can all be persuaded and succumb to corruption if it suits their needs to do so. Likewise, DNA samples can be tampered with or plagued by human error. It is a vicious circle and until human beings change, miscarriages will continue to occur. Miscarriages of justice are definitely not exceptional and occur much more frequently than most people realise. They place a great burden on our society as a whole and cause injustices and hardships to many people. Just because we do not hear about them, does not mean they don't exist. As Walker states "since justice is applied by fallible, prejudiced human beings, miscarriages are inevitable".
The authors constantly remind the reader that there is nothing inevitable about the innocence frame that now shuts out alternative interpretations. The innocence frame packs a wallop, but a list of murderers and their victims would dwarf the roster of the unjustly convicted. For now, however, the interlocking features of the innocence frame- the regular discovery of mistaken convictions, the rise of DNA testing, the proliferation of media stories filtered through the new frame, dramatic revelations of criminal shortcuts taken by police or crime labs, the spread of innocence projects- all fit together and dominate the debate. The cascade of innocence stories has begun to reshape public opinion (support for the death penalty has dropped dramatically) and public policy (fewer death sentences and executions). (Baumgartner, De Boef, & Boydstun,
For example, if a person was given a life sentence, they would be able to be released, if found innocent. If they were given the death penalty, although it takes years, odds are they will be dead before they could be found innocent. The Innocence Project was established in order to vindicate individuals who were wrongfully convicted due to DNA calamity or misidentification with witnesses. Since the Innocent project has been established, an uncountable number of individuals have received freedom for crimes they were wrongfully accused of committing. For most individuals who received a life sentence, and not the death penalty, they were granted a release. According to the Innocence Project out of 300 people exonerated, 25% were convicted of murder, and 18 had death sentences. The innocence project also states, “We have also worked on cases of people who were executed before DNA testing could be conducted to corroborate guilt or prove innocence, and we are aware of several non-DNA cases where evidence of innocence surfaced after people were executed”(Innocenceproject.org/aboutpage). Disparate from the individuals facing a life sentence, those that received a death sentence are less likely to survive to prove their
Justice is an important aspect of the United States and it should always prevail. It is important for justice to be blind because it hurts the reputation of the criminal court of law in the United States if it isn't. Justice has three important elements. It needs to be credible, fair, and balanced. These three elements help make justice the best sense of law in the United States, for all of its citizens.