Arizona Vs Youngblood Case Study

There comes a time in the criminal justice system where a law that was written to protect us will be challenged through a court case. That case will eventually make history and will become a reference in future cases with similar dilemmas. In 1983, one particular case met the criteria (Arizona vs. Youngblood). In this case, Larry Youngblood was convicted by a jury in Arizona of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping of a ten-year-old boy. Both a criminologist for the State and an expert witness for the defendant testified as to what they believed the results were from the tests that were performed on the samples shortly after they were collected, they also commented on later tests performed on the samples from the boy’s clothing

The state started to build a case against the defendant due to the sexual act that occurred between him and the victim, which lead the criminologist to take samples of the semen and ultimately test for results (Police chief magazine). When time approach for an item to be tested the result came back inclusive due to the technology at that time being used was not qualified to conduct a proper reading on the DNA test. The packet was only able to show if a victim was raped or not (Police chief magazine). After realizing that the technology needed to be updated to better enhance the police investigations (Police chief magazine). The Criminologist worked years to come up with several different ways to test one items by DNA, fingerprints, and/or Hair samples, which resulted in the test be 99.9% reliable when convicting a criminal (Police chief magazine). Crime scene investigations are also aided by these systems in scanning for physical evidence. Imagers can detect disturbed surfaces for graves or other areas that have been dug up in an attempt to conceal bodies, evidence, and objects (police chief

Youngblood case has great relevance to today’s and future court cases. There are three things that this case has proved to today’s society. The first is that it covered the potential acts of good faith in the police officer, and how the evidence that was claimed to not be stored properly. The defendant blamed the officer and thought they should be accountable for the length of Youngblood’s sentences. It has been proven that even though the evidence is an essential piece to the individual case, the officer should not be held fully responsible for the entire sentence for a mistake. This is the reason there is a tighter procedure when storing evidence into Criminal Justice field. The improperly investigated case caused the defendant to feel as if the due process clauses were not executed. After careful research it has been proven that the due process clause is not required determining an innocent or guilty plea which ultimately saves a lot of the court’s time when dealing with a defendant. Lastly, Modern technology has a very important position in society today. Even though the assault kit was used to verify if a victim was raped, a better rape kit was invented to not only verify the victim who was assaulted, but also identify the criminal as well. So with everything that has been examined to show the prevalent changes in the criminal justice system we must realize that change is inevitable and it will