DNA testing is one of the most effective tool that investigators all over the world use to find their criminal or reduce the number of suspects that they have. The police force use DNA testing because of its accuracy “The FBI estimates that the odds of a coincidental match are 1 in 108 trillion. Other estimates are 1 in 113 billion, 1 in 10 billion, or 1 in 8192” (Tam, J. 2015). These high accurate numbers of defining the DNA made the courts accept DNA testing as an evidence in investigations and lawsuits. Also according to the Frontline (1996) “DNA identification is not only a way of securing convictions; it is also a way of excluding suspects who might otherwise be falsely charged with and convicted of serious crimes” this has made the job of the investigators much easier than before the existence of DNA testing. Safir (2008) provide these statistics from England and Wales: DNA testing has increased the suspect’s identification rate for domestic burglary from 14% to 44% when DNA is available at the crime scene, also it have a 40% chance of obtaining a match between a crime scene profile and a suspect profile loaded into …show more content…
Backlog is one of the challenges that DNA profiling is facing according to Chavli (2014) “14% of open homicide cases, 15% of open rape cases, and 23% of open property cases faced a delay due to backlog in state and local laboratories … backlogs grow by an estimated 20% each year” . Another reason that makes DNA testing lead to bad results is contamination, technical errors in the lab, analytical errors and many other errors that can happen including machine errors that can be read as actual data and the result will be that the wrong person will be convicted, but overall these mistakes can be solved if there to be little adjustments in the process from finding the DNA sample to the final
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.
. 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 large number of individuals released or convicted of crimes based on DNA left at the crime sceneDNA is the abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is the genetic material found in cells of all living organisms. Human beings contain approximately one trillion cells (Aronson 9). DNA is a long strand in the shape of a double helix made up of small building blocks (Riley). There are four types of building
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.
One of society’s problems is that the wrong people are convicted of a crime they did not commit. None have more dire consequences on those than who are wrongly convicted of rape and murder. The punishment for these crimes are as harsh as possible to deter the crimes and when wrongly convicted, the wrong person gets punished while the true perpetrator gets away. In order to increase the chance of convicting the true perpetrator of the crime, the tools to find and convict criminals had to be refined. And it was refined due to extensive research into DNA. This research was done by Alec Jeffreys and Vicky Wilson, the research’s technician, and it found that in the massive amount of junk codes, there exists many repetitious codes that have copied so many times that it varies from person to person. (Ridley 132) This means that people can be identified with only their DNA from their hair, fluids, skin, etc. This discovery has led to convictions of rapists and murderers such as the Pickford case that Ridley wrote about. It has also led to the sentences of many wrongly convicted people to be retracted and this had led to the release of about 200 people known as the DNA 200. (Phelan) Now, most of the world keeps criminals’ genotype information in order to identify repeat offenders. In the United States, every state requires that every convicted
Another discrepancy between actual forensics and how it is portrayed in the media is the availability of information in databases. There is only a small percentage of the entire population’s fingerprints or DNA samples stored within databases such as the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). This makes finding a match between a DNA sample or fingerprint difficult, as a match would only be found if the person’s information was already stored within the database. If there is no match previously stored in a database, the fingerprint or DNA sample could be potentially rendered useless within a trial. Typically, in order to perform an analysis, investigators must already have a suspect in mind and request a DNA or fingerprint sample from him or her. If the suspect does not want to provide one however, the sample collected as evidence may not count as valid. The CSI effect creates an idealized image that all crimes can be solved with a hair or drop of blood, but this is not always the case in real life.
Abstract; This paper explors the effects DNA fingerprinting has had on the trial courts and legal institutions. Judge Joseph Harris states that it is the "single greatest advance in the search for truth since the advent of the cross examination (Gest, 1988)." And I tend to agree with Judge Joseph's assertion, but with the invention and implementation of DNA profiling and technology has come numerous problems. This paper will explore: how DNA evidence was introduced into the trial courts, the effects of DNA evidence on the jury system and the future of DNA evidence in the trial courts.
First and foremost is the Michael Mosley case. Michael Mosley was convicted murdering a couple ten years ago (Wurtman, 2011). Two other men were cleared when Mosley’s DNA was found at the scene of the murder (Crowe II, 2012). Also, there was a palm print on the wall and further DNA on the sheets in the bedroom (Wurtman, 2011). In contrast to all the evidence, Mosley’s attorney offered an alternative reason and painted a picture of different events to explain Mosley’s DNA’s presence (Wurtman, 2011). However, the jury didn’t buy the defense’s story, and Michael Mosley’s conviction led to a call for the DNA database to be worked on with the most interesting fact being that Michael Mosley had no DNA in the system until seven years later than the crime (Crowe II, 2012).
In the world of forensic science, exoneration holds a very crucial role. In cases where a person has been convicted of a crime and needs to be proven innocent, exoneration plays a key part. It is what helps the court to decide in a just manner whether the crime was committed by that person or not. Exoneration is based on DNA evidence and therefore, is the most authentic. The main purpose of exoneration is to help the legal system by allowing innocent people to be discharged of guilty verdicts. Majority of the legal systems are built on such structures that the people responsible for crimes can be identified and penalized. Exoneration removes the burden, charge or responsibility which is being erroneously imposed on someone by the law. On one hand where it finds out about the actual convict, it also helps the innocent.
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
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...
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.
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).
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.