Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effectiveness and limitations of DNA in criminal investigations
Crimes solved by dna
Dna testing law enforcement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Maryland law enforcement officers are authorizes to collect DNA samples when someone is arrested through the Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) even if they are not convicted of the crime of they commit which include, violent crimes, burglary, or attempted burglary. In 2009, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was arrested on first and second degree assault charges. While he was under arrest King’s DNA was collected and logged into the Maryland DNA database, before he was ever convicted. The database matched the sample of King’s DNA to a sample of DNA from an unsolved rape case. The sample was the only evidence that linked King to the rape case. King sought to suppress the evidence but the trial judge denied his motion. The DNA evidence was used to help convict him of first-degree rape and he was sentenced to life in prison. King then appealed his conviction, arguing that the Maryland DNA Collect Act was an unconstitutional …show more content…
encroachment of his Fourth Amendment privilege against warrantless searches. The Court of Appeals of Maryland overturned, holding that the Maryland DNA Collect Act was unconstitutional. The court held that King's expectation of privacy was greater than Maryland's interest in using the DNA for identification purposes. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.
The police need a secure and safe way to process to identify the people and possessions they will take into custody. The suspect’s criminal history is an important part of his identify that police officers should know when they are processing them for imprisonment. When an officer is taken a DNA sample of a suspect they are trying to find a connection between the suspect and the criminal records they have on file. When trying to identify a suspect it is necessary to search public and police records to obtain information provided by the arrested suspect to see what is already known about him. DNA uses a different form to identify but has the same function as a fingerprint or a name. Since the individual has been arrested on probable cause for a dangerous offense which will require detention before a trial can take place their expectation of privacy or freedom from the police scrutiny are reduced. Only touching the suspect’s mouth with a swab does not significantly invade their privacy or does not involve any
pain. Justice Scalia delivered the dissenting opinion. The Fourth Amendment prohibits from searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis of evidence to believe the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating or illegal evidence. This prohibition is categorical and without exception and it is most important part of the Fourth Amendment. The court has allowed a search that is suspicion less by justifying the motive apart from the investigation of the crime. The Court declared that DNA is being taken to identify someone in the State’s custody, not to solve crimes. The Court has compared the Maryland’s DNA searches to the other methods for example fingerprinting, can be fitting for those who do not know more than what today’s opinion has told them about how DNA searches actually work.
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
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,483,906 offender profiles and 324,318 forensic profiles as of June 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). It has been suggested by Froomkin, a Senior Washington Correspondent, that the FBI is “shifting its resources from forensics to feeding the database” (Froomkin, 2010). This dramatic shift curtails some of the benefits of the CODIS application to the criminal justice system, as the backlogs of DNA samples increase and the statutes of limitations grow nearer and nearer on unsolved crimes.
This case started on July 25, 1984, with the death of a nine year old girl by the name of Dawn Hamilton. The story plays out as follows: Dawn approached two boys and an adult male that were fishing at a pond in a wooded area near Golden Ring Mall in eastern Baltimore, Maryland. Dawn asked the boys to help her find her cousin, they declined the adult male however agreed to help her look. This was the last time anyone saw Hamilton alive. Hamilton’s body was found to have been raped, strangled and beaten with a rock. The police collected a boot print at the scene and DNA that was found in Hamilton’s underwear. The police also relied on the witness testimonies and line-ups, which in this case was the photo array. With the five eye witness testimonies and a tip the believed to be suspect was found. Kirk Noble Bloodsworth a prior U.S. Marine with no prior criminal record was taken into custody and charged with intentional first degree murder, sexual assault and rape. Bloodsworth was basically convicted on the eye witness testimonies. The state requested the death penalty. Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. (BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 1988)
“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
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.
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.
...jury. DNA is a very complicated subject and using statistics and numbers can be confusing and misleading to the jury. By accepting the defense’s suggestion to use the NRC report, the judge gave the defense a push in their direction.
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.
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.
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...
the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. National Institute of Justice, 10, 15. Retrieved from, https://www.ncjrs.gov/
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).
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.
Law enforcement officers come across a plethora of cases each year. Every case which is investigated and DNA collected should not be sent to a lab. Every crime that is investigated meets different requirement and elements. For instance, when investigating a burglary and blood is found at the scene, DNA is collected and attached to the case file. If the burglary had no other crime involved such as rape or a homicide, just stolen goods, why would the agency spend the resources to just to catch a petty theft at night. Crimes are committed each day and there are priorities for crimes, most server crimes that involve life and or sexual related crimes should be investigated and all DNA sent to the lab to be analyzed and compared to I the database. In a perfect world we would be able to catch all criminals with DNA because in away every criminal leaves DNA at the scene, whether it be hair, saliva, sweat, blood, mucus, and finger prints, Locard's exchange principle.