The COmbined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a computer software program that is operated and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, which allows law enforcement agencies to search and exchange DNA information. It was originally created in 1990 as a pilot software project that would allow 14 State and Local laboratories to communicate and share biological evidence data to aid in criminal case closure. Following the DNA Identification Act of 1994, the FBI established the National DNA Index System (NDIS) that currently serves over 25 countries in their own DNA Data banking initiatives (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). NDIS, populated by many State DNA Index Systems (SDIS) and local DNA Index Systems (LDIS) provide a mechanism for cross checking previously disparate legal and judicial entities for serial criminal offenders (USA.gov, 2010).
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.
Benefits/Detriments of CODIS use in the Criminal Justice System
According to the FBI’s NDIS Statistics, CODIS has produced over 120,300 hits assisting in more than 117,800 investigations as of June 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). All states collect DNA from convicted felony offenders, but many have passed bills t...
... middle of paper ...
.../billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4614
Kravets, D. (2010). Wired. Retrieved from Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/obama-supports-dna-sampling-upon-arrest/
Office of the Inspector General. (2010). Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory’s Forensic DNA Case Backlog. U.S. Department of Justice.
Sepich, J. (n.d.). State's DNA Law. Retrieved from Katies Law: http://www.katieslaw.org/states.html
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
USA.gov. (2010). Levels of the Database. Retrieved from DNA Initiative: http://www.dna.gov/dna-databases/levels/
Wikipedia. (2010). Precautionary Principle. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
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.
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.
Easteal, McCleod, and Reed. DNA Profiling: Principles, Pitfalls and Potential. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991.
Most studies have shown that popular opinion holds that without a doubt national DNA databases have proved useful in criminal investigations (Wallace, 2006, pS27). The concept of a national DNA database has raised concern about privacy and human rights as seen through the scope of public safety. All of these concerns are elevated with databases include convicted, arrestee, innocent, and “rehabilitated” offenders (Suter, 2010, p339). Robin Williams of University of Duham (2006) asserts that:
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.
"Using DNA to Solve Crimes." U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. (September 9, 2014). Web. 29 May 2015.
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
"Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Fact Sheet." National Human Genome Research Institute. 10 Dec. 2007. National Institutes of Health. .
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.
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 Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. National Institute of Justice, 10, 15. Retrieved from, https://www.ncjrs.gov/
Forensic science has now been recognized as an important part of the law enforcement team to help solve crimes and cold cases. The advances in technology are being used each day and we must continue to strive to develop better advances in this field. The recent discovery of using DNA in criminal cases has helped not only positively identify the suspect, but it has helped exonerate hundreds of innocent individuals. “With new advances in police technology and computer science, crime scene investigation and forensic science will only become more precise as we head into the future.” (Roufa, 2017) Forensic science and evidence helps law enforcement officials solve crimes through the collection, preservation and analysis of evidence. By having a mobile crime laboratory, the scene gets processed quicker and more efficiently. Forensic science will only grow in the future to be a benefit for the criminal justice
The process of touch DNA was fist demonstrated in 1997 and since then has been extremely useful in criminal cases. The United States adopted this method of analysis in the year 2003. Though it was first used only about 15 years, in the past few years it has been used more. The use of touch DNA has grown more popular because there is no visible evidence needed. With other common forms of DNA collection, the evidence needed, for example blood or semen, must be visible in order to collect a sample.3 On average, a sufficient amount of DNA would need to be the