Advances in Science and Genetic Research have significantly impacted the criminal justice system. With the development of programs aimed at utilizing biological or genetic samples collected from potential suspects of a crime, investigators are able to compare the samples against samples collected from the crime scene. One of the most widely-known programs, the Combined Deoxyribonucleic Acid Index System (CODIS), was developed as a law enforcement resource to compare new samples of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) against the registered DNA samples of “convicted offenders, unsolved crime scene evidence, and missing persons across local, State, and national databases” (Office of Justice Programs, 2011). Scientific and government research identifies the program’s efficacy is a result of the increasing number of criminal case closures from cross-referencing suspect DNA samples against samples in the DNA database. Alternately, there is equal concern for the efficiency and effectiveness of utilizing the CODIS program in criminal investigations, based on the overwhelming backlog of collected and unregistered samples.
Since
…show more content…
The program’s primary metric is referred to as "Investigations Aided," where the number of CODIS-aided criminal investigations is compiled and recorded. With over 120,000 documented hits, or positive matches, to profiles in the DNA databases, CODIS is proving to be an invaluable tool in criminal investigations (“Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory’s Forensic DNA Case Backlog”, 2010). Also, there is growing trend of local and State governments requiring the collection of DNA samples from all suspected offenders, regardless of conviction. This trend is potentially driven by Federal Grant Programs that offer incentives to States that implement an “enhanced DNA collection process” (House of Representatives,
“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
The analysis of the samples should be used only to confirm or negate match between the sample taken from the crime scene fgand the sample taken from the suspect. That is, it should sdfremain as an identifgication tool only. There should be no further analysis of the DNA to suggest psychological characteristics that would make the suspect more likely to have cdfommitted the crime. This rule should apply also to samples taken from convicted dfdoffenders for a data vor dagta bank.
... any of the DNA provided by the Vaninced victim support one report showed a piece of genetic material the penis of Steven branch but could not be linked to any victim.The penis of Steven branch that could not be linked to any victim or any defendant in the meantime our investigators were obtain DNA samples in the air cigarette butts world swabs from people who had some connection to the events is included samples from several people including Steven branches stepfather Terry Hobbs.The result of that analysis in May 2007 show that rope used to tie up Michael Moore could be associated with very hot provided a result the prosecution right after learning of it much more recent analysis by Mr. Fedora show that hair found on a tree root through Tree Stump at the crime scene could be associated with the DNA samples provided by Terry Hobbs.
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.
Today, DNA testing has become more evident in solving cases by proving guilt or innocence. I am focusing on a case of three boys convicted of murder with no substantial evidence to prove guilt and how DNA evidence could help them receive an acquittal they have anticipated for eighteen years. According to the Innocence Project website, there have been 272 post conviction DNA exonerations in the United States (“Innocence”). Since the late 1980’s, DNA testing has exonerated more than 250 wrongly convicted people, who spent an average of 13 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit (Rosen, New York Times, 2011). There are a total of 205 exonerations that have been won in 34 states since 2000, and 35 percent of those confessions were done by a person that was eighteen years old or younger (“Innocence”).
Deoxyribonucleic acid also known as the term we all use today DNA, has increased the chances of catching criminal behavior brought out on a crime more efficiently and accurately then ways that were used before the 1980s.DNA not only was used in crimes but also used to figure out biological factors such as the relationship between parents, children and siblings. Although DNA testing could be more accurately obtained with a higher certainty level in crime then an eye witness or confession. Is it against the US Constitution to obtain samples from those who are already in custody? This question rests in the decision of our US Supreme Court whether or not it is against a person’s right to legally take their DNA without consent
Gabriel, M. N., Huffine, E. F., Ryan, J. H., Holland, M. M., & Parsons, T. J. (2001). Improved MtDNA sequence analysis of forensic remains using a “mini-primer set” amplification strategy. Journal Forensic Science, 46(2), 247–253.
Since their first establishment in 1995 (Wallace, n.d.), the use of DNA databases has significantly increased. Today, DNA databases are rapidly expanding, with numerous countries using these databases for clinical research and to store criminal DNA (Roman-Santos, 2011). Their potential benefits and current assistance in solving crimes has caused huge controversy, especially surrounding the idea of a universal database. Although there are many benefits, including the identification and study of diseases, as well as improvements in crime detection and prevention, there are also various ethical concerns, such as the right to privacy and the potential for misuse if poorly regulated. These advantages and disadvantages instigate the debate as to
Office of the Inspector General. (2010). Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory’s Forensic DNA Case Backlog. U.S. Department of Justice.
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.
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 on science, and participated in misconduct. False confessions have also been known to cause unlawful convictions. In some instances, police departments took part in transgression and interviewed their suspects in such an intense manner that a false confession was used cease the interrogation. To imagine that there are innocent people rotting in prison is appalling and something must be done. To prevent wrongful convictions, legislatures should form commissions and policies to reform flawed procedures.
Saferstein, R. (2007). DNA the Indispensable Forensic Science Tool. In Criminalistics (9th ed., pp. 382-416). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. (Original work published 1977)
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.
Forensic scientists have been curious in using genetic information to match crime scene evidence with suspects in criminal investigations for a very long time. However recently the lack of suitable experimental approach prevented them from achieving this until DNA fingerprint profiling was discovered. During the 1980’s geneticist Alec Jeffreys discovered how to DNA fingerprint using a drop of his own blood. Since then DNA fingerprinting has been used on hundreds of thousands of people throughout many countries and helping trap hundreds of killers, free the innocent and revolutionise science and criminal justice.
Other factors contribute to the backlog of cases, such as lack of training, a lack of accreditation, DNA contamination, sentencing mistakes, and poor training. A lack of training is a very large issue when it comes to DNA analysis; the field is forever changing and developing more accurate and faster ways of analyzing DNA samples. If those investigators that are analyzing the DNA have not been attending continuing professional education they will not know these new techniques, therefor slowing the process of analyzing and identifying the DNA samples. Another issue is a lack of accreditation, the most recognized and primary source of accreditation is the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) (Swanson et at., pg. 229, 2012) .