Throughout the years technology has come an extensive way, resulting in the Criminal Justice System to improve their ways to catch criminals. One of these ways includes, DNA Fingerprinting. This reveals an opportunity for Crime Scene Analyst to have a greater possibility to capture criminals; a greater chance than fingerprints itself.
Alec Jeffery, discovered the differences regarding DNA in 1984 at the University of Leicester. Jeffery had attended school at Merton College and reportedly studied biochemistry and genetics, after his studies the individual decided to teach at the University of Leicester, the professor taught Genetics and was rewarded the name of Research Professor. Professor Jeffery has been awarded multiple awards for the following, Gold Award from the Associates of College, this award shows that further education for students with a desire to learn has supported his career. Another well-known, award he has received , 2008 Millennium Technology Prize Laureate, this is his most recent award. Jeffery has other numerous awards, including, Honorary Doctor of Science, 2005 H.P.
The accused should have the right the view the evidence in their favor, and against them. This could lead them to realize they are going to be stated as guilty, or it could lead them to provide evidence to prove them not guilty.This would help with the case, whether to build it up, or down. Convicted criminals who would like to reopen their case using DNA evidence should to examine it.
All in all, DNA fingerprinting is an impressive improvement in technology. Using multiple methods and different outcomes will help support of enforcement. This new method might even prevent crimes from occurring. Submitting DNA would assist in helping our country becoming a better place by locking up hurtful people. DNA can put hurtfully people behind bars, and free the wrongfully
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.
Saltus, Richard. "DNA Fingerprinting: Its A Chance Of Probabilties." The Boston Globe 22 August 1994: 25.
“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
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), plays a significant role in how we make arrests and how we have a successful conviction without trialing the wrong individual or individuals. Felons that have a distinctive connection to an ongoing crime or an earlier crime should mandatorily give up their DNA being that it can ensure safety and clear the inmate of being falsely accused. Many cases need a solid prosecution so they have no room to falsify a person that’s why DNA needs to be obtained with an ease. Cases that were never closed are now being fully investigated due to this unique system that allows us to run finger prints, saliva, hair and even partial evidence can get a lead in a case. If a victim was raped they would administer a rape kit at the consent of the victim to find any traces of DNA left by the perpetrator(s). The DNA collected would be ran through CODIS and NDIS to see if there was a hit off evidence. If a person(s) are taken into custody and found guilty of that crime, their DNA should be further examined to ensure that no other crimes were committed and justice is equally served for one or all victims that has to live with an altered conscience. If they were to refuse, then it could be a big loss to finding if there are more victims and different
Despite the prominence and success of over sixty innocence projects in United States, there is no literatures discussing how these organizations operate, what resources or factors contribute to their success and what challenges they much overcome (Krieger, S.A 2007). The Innocence Project’s groundbreaking use of DNA technology to free innocent people has provided irrefutable proof that wrongful convictions are not isolated or rare events but instead arise from systemic defects (Innocence Project, 2014). The innocence project is a nonprofit organization that is being run by attorneys w...
DNA testing is one of forensic sciences core techniques. Everyone has there own individual DNA profile, even identical twins. DNA is in every cell of our body. In the 1980s, a British scientist named Sir Alec Jeffery's, developed DNA profiling. Our DNA can be separated from human cells found at a Crime Scene, with perspiration, blood, skin, the roots of hair, semen, mucus, and saliva. The Colin Pitchfork case was the first murder conviction established on DNA profiling evidence.
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 .
I personally feel that this is a much more reliable and accurate than relying on the testimony of witnesses. I believe through the use of science we as a society can now make sure that the guilty are caught and punished while the innocent are protected from wrongful prosecution. However the eyewitness should not be completely left out of the case against the possible offender. After it is determined through scientific evidence, in this case DNA, that the physically involved in the crime then witnesses can be brought in to give testimony that the offender was present at the crime scene or the victim can be sure that the accused was truly the one involved in the actual crime.
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...
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).
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.