Should DNA Evidence be Admissible in Murder Trials? “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 …show more content…
Another good article for making their opinion to stand out is “The Pros and Cons of DNA Profiling.” by Daniella Nicole who is a blogger on Bright Hub. She gives us her reasons that how DNA can help those wrongly accused citizens. She also uses evidence to support her claims on how the different point of views are in the pros and cons on this topic. These are just a few articles and blogs of how people express their opinions on this subject and there are many more out there you just need to start searching to find them. Therefore, DNA evidence has help solve cases that could have been closed and no justice would have been performed. Here is an example from Dave Phillips the article “Judge Rules DNA Evidence Admissible in Royal Oak Murder Trial.” presented in the Oakland Press News. Phillips writes that the judge made a rule that DNA evidence should be admissible in a murder trial. A man was accused of killing an elderly woman in her home in Royal Oak. The attorneys of the guilty party, Alan Wood, tried to keep DNA evidence out of this case. In the end of his article he tells the reader that by using DNA evidence in this murder trial man guilty party went to jail when he could’ve been free without the ruling of the judge. The pros of having DNA evidence in murder trials would mean of catching the real killer and having justice for the families of the victims which they …show more content…
Before this act ,courtrooms did not use much of DNA evidence in their cases to prove someone either guilty or innocent. Another quote from her article is “In addition, the law authorizes additional grants to states and local governments to analyze DNA samples and improve DNA labs.” She is referring that the state and government receive money to review any DNA evidence they receive from a case. Which helps whoever is being either wrongly convicted or putting an guilty party in jail. This also helps the families of the victims of a murder case being noticed and heard that the guilty party should receive some kind of punishment of what they have done to their family causing them to lose a dear
In today's society no crime is a perfect crime, with the use of DNA testing and modern advancements in health and forensics even the smallest piece of someone's genome can be cultured and used to identify even the most devious of criminals. The use of DNA testing was able to help change the life of Gene Bibbins for the better and further proved how DNA testing is able to be used to help clarify who the culprit actually is. Gene Bibbins life was forever changed the night that he was unjustifiably arrested for aggravated rape which resulted in his being sentenced to life in prison, only for his case to eventually be reevaluated sixteen years after his conviction, leading to his exoneration.
“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
DNA evidence should not be colvcslected from suspects as a matter of routine. To do so will cause unnecessary privacy intrusion; in the vast majority of criminal cases DNA evidence will contribute nothing to the investigation. Thus, it would not be appropriate for Parliament to give blanket authority to collect DNA samples from all persons suspected of indictable offences. DNA should also not be collected from a suspect if investigators have no DNA evidence with which to compare the suspect's sample. Nor would a DNA sample be necessary if the suspect admitted guilt.
After reading a number of articles, and attending the “Picking Cotton” lecture. I have come to the conclusion that, without the breakthrough of DNA extraction technology. Many people would still be convicted of a crime they never committed.
DNA in forensic science has been around for a long time. DNA has had help in solving almost every crime committed. There have been a lot of crimes where people are raped or murdered and the person who did it runs free. Scientists can collect the littlest item they see at the scene, such as a cigarette butt or coffee cup and check it for DNA. People have spent years in jail for a crime they didn’t commit till DNA testing came into effect. People are getting out of jail after 20 years for a crime they didn’t commit, cause of the DNA testing. DNA has helped medical researchers develop vaccines for disease causing microbe. DNA has become a standard tool of forensics in many murders and rapes.
I would say I support DNA conviction and exoneration cases today, but wouldn’t say a decade or two ago. The Innocence Projects reports that since 1989, there have been 330 cases where the inmate has been exonerated from prison based on DNA evidence—twenty of these individuals were death row inmates. The average time that a person that has been exonerated by DNA evidence spends in prison before being let out? Fourteen years of freedom gone. Playing devil’s advocate though, I attribute this to the fact that technology starting out during DNA testing was obviously not at the same level we have today and thus, mistakes were made—to be exact, about forty-seven percent of these wrongful convictions handed down were found to be wrong following
...tood. This problem has persisted through many cases, clearly highlighting the lack of expertise of juries, and if they do not understand the process and basic rules, then they cannot be a reliable body in determining innocence. Jurors incapability of following evidence inevitably leads to guess work with jury’s finding defendants guilty because ‘he looked like he did it’ and ‘he looks like a nonce so he must of done it’. Moreover, cases have been reported of incredulous juries using absurd methods to ascertain a verdict, like in R v Young 1995, where a Ouija Board was used to determine if the defendant was guilty or not. It is clear that it would be better and far more effective to abolish the jury system, and leave the experts and qualified legal professionals to try defendants, as they understand the process and possess the expertise to make balanced decisions.
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.
The theory of DNA, simply stated, is that an individual’s genetic information is unique, with the exception of identical twins, and that it “definitively links biological evidence such as blood, semen, hair and tissue to a single individual” (Saferstein, 2013). This theory has been generally accepted since the mid-80s throughout the scientific community and hence, pursuant to the 1923 Frye ruling, also deemed admissible evidence throughout our justice system.
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).
Jasanoff, S. (1998). The Eye of Everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson Trial. Social Studies Of Science (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 28(5/6), 713.
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News
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.
So, if the jury isn’t interested in the case and or will decide the defendant guilty or innocent based on the defendant’s demeanor, then what’s the whole point of having prosecutors and defense attorneys collect evidence if it’s not going to matter to the jury? Would you rather have a bench trial with a sixty percent chance of being convicted or a jury trial with an eighty seven percent chance of being convicted? Do we really trust these twelve individuals who are ordinary citizens to know and judge our actions under the law? Do we trust these individuals to only use the evidence presented in court to make their decisions? Do we have an effective system for eliminating those who might serve as a disadvantage to the defendant?
Proponents of expanding the use of DNA tests in the legal arena like to point out that these tests will exonerate truly innocent individuals. DNA tests have exonerated some wrongly imprisoned people but it is disingenuous to think this is the real reason for growing use of DNA tests. The real reason for all of this is, of course, to help prosecutors obtain more convictions. It is thus worth keeping in mind that the criminal justice system currently reflects deep class and race biases. Journalist and attorney David Cole argues persuasively in his recently published book No Equal Justice that this is no accident. Rather law enforcement, the legal system, and the prison system operate in a way that insures the disproportionate imprisonment of poor people and people of color. If the government only conducts DNA tests of people convicted of crimes, it will fortify and expand this already unfair process.