Topic: The forensic use of DNA technology.
Introduction:
This paper discusses the effect of forensic use of DNA technology and importance of using this technology. Due to the increasing rate of violent, The forensic use of DNA technology is essential in this search, hence, this technology enhances the search for truth by helping the police and prosecutors in the fight against crime. Through the use of DNA evidence, prosecutors are usually able to prove the defendant guilt. Some DNA evidence, such as fingerprint evidence offers prosecutors essential new tools for identifying and apprehending some of the most violent perpetrators, mostly in sexual assault cases.
Purpose statement:
The value of DNA technology as well as the role of science in the criminal justice system for the search of truth.
Literature review
DNA evidence enhances the search for truth by clearing the innocence of a suspect. In a case where there is lack of enough evidence, a suspect may be sentences on a crime which he did not do, and this is due to lack of evidence. These can be challenged successfully, using DNA tests on existing evidence.
For an appropriate result of a forensic DNA results. The following tasks should be followed to the end, namely;
The prosecutor should maintain a high standards for collecting and preserving DNA evidence.
Methodology used in DNA testing should be meets the scientific criteria for reliability and accuracy.
Proficiency and credibility of forensic scientific should be maintained, so that both the results and testimony are of the high standards, hence are capable of withstanding demanding scrutiny.
Generally, in order to meet these scientific challenges, a continuous support is required for research that contribute...
... middle of paper ...
...ting a scientifically understanding, hence Jury will be able to appreciate the scientific methodology used to test the results.
The second approach, which is advocated by the prosecutor is applying the K.S.S.S. Principle. When this principle is applied, DNA evidence is presented in about half an hour to the jury, and in the conclusion, the jury has a full appreciation of the power of the DNA test results in the case, since it is an additional evidence to the case, . When this approach is used, the jury will be able to know how a powerful, reliable, and a widely accepted scientific procedure has been demonstrated and that there is a high probability that the piece of biological evidence is has come from a suspect. In addition, the jury will be able to know that the complaints from the suspect regarding possible problem with the test results are based without merit.
In certain situations, it is necessary to identify DNA retreived from a sample. When there is a
DNA evidence should not be collected from suspects as a matter of routine unless the information is relevant to a specific crime in question. For example, it would appropriate to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect where DNA evidence is left at the scene of a crime and the suspect's DNA in needed to prove the suspect's involvement.
In 1989 the National Research Council Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science was developed due to numerous scientific and legal issues (The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence). The National Research Council’s key role was to analyze statistical and population genetic issues in the use of DNA evidence and review major alternative approaches to statistical evaluation of DNA evidence (The Evaluation of Forensic DNA, 50). Over the past fifteen years DNA profiling has made tremendous advancements and continuous improvements in the fight against violent
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.
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.
The enactment of state post-conviction DNA testing statutes has not been uniform. Some state laws include statutes of limitations beyond which petitioners may no longer file claims. Some states appoint counsel, some do not. They still have to determine if the evidence to be tested is material and reliable (whether there has been a documented chain of custody). If the evidence is too small, or degraded, or otherwise fails to comply with the statutory requirements, the petitioner has no recourse. These advancements are taking place because attorneys are fighting for the right of DNA profiling to save the innocent who have been falsely accused.
Palermo explains the “…means of impeding the presentation of sloppy scientific evidence is found Federal Rule of Evidence 403 that gives judges the discretion to admit or to exclude from trial evidence, including scientific, deemed to prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to jurors” (2006). The article then explains that the technical terms used in the trial court while presenting the DNA analyses, is many times too complex for the individuals sitting on the jury. Ultimately, these same jurors are still inclined to reject or accept the facts presented even if they don’t understand the information presented. Palermo also commented on the necessity for better training on the individuals that come in close contact with the collection of DNA evidence, because it’s imperative, as is the training of DNA analysts and others involved with the handling of evidence. The collection of evidence plays a viable role in the process of DNA examination because if evidence isn’t collected properly the evidence could easily be contaminated with other elements from the crime scene.
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.
"Using DNA to Solve Crimes." U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. (September 9, 2014). Web. 29 May 2015.
Whereas the real picture of forensic evidence is unlike what is represented in movies and television shows where a fingerprint or a trace of hair is found, then it’s game over for the criminal. Reality is not as straightforward. As more people are exposed to the unreal forensic world through television and media the likeliness for a wrong conviction increases with juries assuming the evidence involves more science than what it really does, this is known as the CSI Effect. Further education and training is needed for the people of the court, the forensic specialists, and so called experts. The people in courts do not question any of the ‘professionals’ and just trust in their expertise. The court could overcome this perception by requiring explanation of error rates in a forensic field. To do this, testing examiner error rates will be necessary which means further research. Forensic science has such a large effect on the prosecution of suspects, experts have been known to provide questionable and at times incorrect evidence. When a false conviction occurs the true perpetrator is set free. Once realized, the public doubts the justice system and the reliability of the forensic evidence even more. At this point in time, forensic is an inexact
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