We have all seen those crime television shows where criminals get sentenced to jail time because of DNA fingerprinting technology. It was miraculous to see all the criminals go to jail, but when did recording fingerprints even begin? This life-changing way of fighting crime started around the late 1800’s and has been utilized in massive amounts of cases since then. “A timeline of the use of forensics shows that fingerprinting is one of the oldest methods of investigating a crime using science.” (Online Bachelor’s Degree in Criminology). We now know that DNA fingerprinting has been an important tool for science, but what about the cons to it? Fingerprinting has its highs and lows, which means that there are multiple pros and cons having to do …show more content…
An obvious pro is that fingerprinting aids in convicting criminals or saving innocent victims. If there was no fingerprinting, people could get away with crimes and more innocent humans would be put into jail by accident. DNA fingerprinting sets that barrier to protect us and place the correct people in jail. “This method is also very versatile, flexible and efficient. Even with just a small drop, identity can easily be established” (Apecsec.org). A simple fingerprint you can find out everything you need to know about a person. It only takes a second to get a person’s fingerprint, but the result is mind-blowing. Fingerprints will reveal a good amount of information about your life. They tell us information such as; birth, your name, where you live, where you work, and even if you have been arrested before. This is useful when you get a fingerprint background check after being accused of a crime. DNA fingerprinting simply makes identifying a human much simpler and precise. If an officer wants to find out who a person really is, they can find that out easily with a fingerprint. Simply put, they are a popular way to solve crimes in this day of age and even way back in time. Only time can tell where fingerprinting takes us in the …show more content…
One con is that “the accuracy and efficiency of DNA fingerprinting solely depend on competency of equipment, lab personnel and experience” (Apecsec.org). We most likely cannot intensely analyze the equipment the DNA department uses for crimes, and a majority of us will not know the difference between good and bad equipment. This is an important reason why some people do not like to trust fingerprint convictions in crimes. Another con that ties into the previous one is that any faulty usage of the equipment or mistake made during the process can put the wrong person in jail. People make mistakes, but sometimes it can put an innocent person in jail and release a criminal into the world for free. Forensics can also grab the wrong fingerprints in a crime scene and automatically put that innocent person on the suspect list. Public places can be confusing to get fingerprints from and simply retrieving a fingerprint from the crime scene can be a dizzy maze of complexity. These cons can change the minds of some people on the edge of accepting DNA
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.
The pros for having suspects forced to provide samples for DNA testing are few. One is that if DNA is left at the scene of a crime, then if they can get a sample from a suspect and compare, it is a much faster process.
DNA is the blueprint of life. It stores our genetic information which is what is in charge of how our physical appearance will look like. 99.9% of human DNA is the same in every person yet the remaining .1% is what distinguishes each person (Noble Prize). This small percentage is enough to make each person different and it makes identifying people a lot easier when its necessary. DNA not only serves to test relationships between people it also helps in criminal cases. DNA testing in criminal cases has not been around for many years if fact it was not until the early 1990s when the use of DNA testing for criminal cases was approved and made available. By comparing the DNA of a suspect and that found in the crime scene a person can either be convicted of a crime or they can be exonerated. This method of testing gained more publicity in the 1984 case of Kirk Noble Bloodsworth a man who had been convicted of the rape and first degree murder of a nine year old girl in Maryland. His case was a milestone in the criminal justice system since it involved the use of new technology and it also raised the question of how many people had been wrongly incarcerated for a crime they did not commit.
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.
In the article, DNA Fingerprinting: Cracking Our Genetic “Barcode” by Elaine N. Marieb, she describes the process and uses of DNA fingerprinting. The importance of DNA is very helpful because it makes it easier to identify different individuals through their genetic material. In another interesting article, Interface Facts by Katie L. Burke, she mainly focuses on internet video games that could be an effective method for scientific research for scientists and non-scientists. DNA and Technology have emerged and are a great benefit to humans to help find matches such as long-relatives, a murderer in a case, and personal background information whether alive or deceased. Also DNA and Technology can be useful for public awareness reasons too.
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.
Some barriers of gaining access to DNA evidence is that it is a secure facility for official personnel that can see and examine the evidence so there is a less chance of it being tampered with. The evidence stays in the labs and the evidence will stay preserved in a safe and protected storage room, unless being presented in court. Criminals don’t have access to it and they have to go through a process to possibly get it retested or in some cases tested for the first
In 1893, Francis Galton introduced a remarkable new way to identify people ("Fingerprinting" pg 1 par 3). His observation that each individual has a unique set of fingerprints revolutionized the world of forensics. Soon, all investigators had adapted the idea to use fingerprints as a form of identification. Unfortunately, over the course of the past century, criminals have adapted to this technique and seldom leave their incriminating marks at the crime scene. Forensics specialists were in need of a new way to identify criminals, and DNA provided the answer. When it comes to genetic material, it is virtually impossible for a criminal to leave a crime scene "clean." Whether it is a hair, flakes of skin, or a fragment of fingernail, if it contains genetic material then it has potential to incriminate. However, there are still concerns regarding DNA fingerprinting. What are the implications of using these tests in a courtroom scenario? What happens when DNA tests go awry? It is debatable whether or not DNA fingerprinting has a place in America's court systems.
DNA fingerprinting, or sometimes known as DNA typing, is isolating and developing images of sequences of DNA to evaluate the DNA in an individual’s cells. DNA fingerprinting today is used for many different things in many different areas of science. In forensic science, DNA typing can determine which person did which crime by using blood or skin left at a crime scene. In medical science, patients can find out who their siblings, parents, or children are by using DNA fingerprinting (webmd).
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic exists in all living organisms, is self-replicating and gives a person their unique characteristics. No two people have the same matching DNA. There are many different forms of DNA that are tested for situations such as criminal. Bodily fluids, hair follicles and bone tissues are some of the most common types of DNA that is tested in crime labs today. Although the discovery of DNA dates back to 1866 when Gregor Mendel proved the inheritance of factors in pea plants, DNA testing is relatively new and have been the prime factor when solving crimes in general. In 1966, scientists discovered a genetic code that made it possible to predict characteristics by studying DNA. This lead to genetic engineering and genetic counseling. In 1980, Organ was the first to have a conviction based off DNA fingerprinting and DNA testing in forensics cases became famous in 1995 during the O.J. Simpson trial (SMC History , 2011).
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.
This has helped convicting people of crimes much easier and efficient. “For the first time, the criminal justice system now has a body of cases in which there is scientific proof that the truth finding mechanisms of the system failed.” The American justice system takes great precautions to make sure people are not falsely convicted band say that “ It is better to let 10 (or 100) guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person”. However nothing is perfect and even our justice system makes mistakes. Without DNA testing Edwin Borchard identified sixty-five cases of wrongful convictions in 1932. Not everyone who is falsely convicted is completely innocent either. They could have just been convicted of a greater charge than what they actually deserved. Most people like this live with
The three different main types of fingerprints are Loops, Arches, and Whorls (Jackson 1). Henry Faulds is known as the Father of Fingerprints and developing fingerprints (Jackson 1). His discovery of fingerprints has made a huge impact not only in his time but, in Modern Crime Scene Investigation (Jackson 1). Without fingerprinting, it would be very difficult to convict criminals of crimes and very hard to try to process information. Crime Scene Investigators make a huge impact in Forensic Science. We need CSI workers, without them people could only imagine what crime would be like not only in our community, but in our
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).
Fingerprint usage dates back to the 1800s. Sir William Herschel used the prints as signatures on civil contracts, before they were found useful towards crimes (History of Fingerprints Timeline, 2012). A British surgeon, Dr. Henry Faulds, wrote about using fingerprints for personal identification. He first looked at prints on clay pottery and studied the ridges and patterns that they had made in the clay. In 1891, Juan Vucetich suggested to start fingerprinting criminals to keep the prints on record. The following year, Vucetich identified a print from a woman who killed her two sons. Investigators found her print and were able to correctly match her identity. Charles Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, wrote and published the first book about fingerprints. He wrote about how every individual has a unique print by the certain traits of each fingerprint (History of Fingerprints, 2012). The popularity of fingerprints grew greatly in the United States in the early 1900s. Police departments and the FBI began to use the...