The Growth of DNA Profiling With today's crime rate being at an all time high, crime investigators have switched to using faster and easier methods of locating a suspect. DNA profiling is one method that is becoming more popular because it is faster and easier. It is also becoming popular because you can use the method of DNA profiling in more than one way and for several different things other than just in criminal investigations. One of the most common uses for DNA profiling is the use in criminal investigations. DNA profiling is a method that is becoming more popular in criminal investigations because of how the method can guarantee a DNA match. Unlike other methods, DNA profiling can take a DNA sample of a suspect and give an identity, because with DNA profiling the method uses all types of records to find the identity, not just the records of past criminals. The use of all of these different records helps in case the suspect’s match is a guarantee and not just someone with a past criminal record, whose DNA is similar to that of the actual suspect (Pros and Cons). Another reason why DNA profiling is becoming more and more popular in criminal investigations is because DNA profiling can use a wide range of DNA samples. In other methods of finding a DNA match, …show more content…
The average time it take the for a convicted felon to be convicted, have the case reopened after the original trial, and being released is fourteen years. With DNA profiling the possibility of being wrongly convicted would not happen or the time period between sentencing and release could be made shorter. DNA profiling makes the process of matching the DNA to a suspect shorter and if the DNA doesn’t match the convicted criminal than the convicted can be released in a shorter amount of time, not in fourteen year like it could take using other methods (DNA Exonerations
It can refute a claim of self-defense and put a weapon in the suspect's hand. It can change a story from an alibi to one of consent. The more officers know how to use DNA, the more powerful a tool it becomes.” This proves that DNA evidence is very reliable and is hard evidence that cannot be argued upon. DNA is either found at the scene of the crime or isn’t.
It is a great technological innovation that can help bring evidences and fact faster. In the article The DNA Wars Are Over, “Forensic use of DNA technology in criminal cases began in 1986… In one of the first uses of DNA in a criminal case in the United States, in November 1987.” Sadly in 1985, DNA testing was not popular in the U.S. investigation and was not available in Cole’s case. I believe the U.S. court system is improving and yes there are a lot mistrials and wrongful conviction cases, but you cannot avoid the fact that DNA testing can bring better truth than just relying on statements of both
The leader of this group, named Deirdre, said that scanning extra objects for DNA is important, ”When I talked to DNA experts that they were saying, ‘Yeah, I mean, if you swab that and get some skin cells or saliva and it’s just random, you get no hit on anybody, well then it neither here nor there.’ But they were saying, ‘but if put it in and you get a hit on a serial killer… well now you got enough to charge and convict somebody.’ So what you call relevant and irrelevant you can only do once you have a test result” (111). Deirdre likes to test anything that could possibly lead them to another suspect in the crime. Not everyone in the detective business is, however, not like her.
DNA testing has been changing lives for the wrongfully convicted. Innocent people are being released from prisons because of DNA. Ronald Cotton was fortunate to have been found innocent thanks to DNA evidence after being imprisoned for years. It may not always be that way, though, there are still people being locked up once DNA has ruled them out.
For example, Maryland believed that DNA analysis helps to identify suspects more accurately and reduce future crimes, which would boost the public's confidence in law enforcement. The State even claimed that without the DNA Collection Act, which enabled the police to cheek swab from King, they would not have connected King to the sexual assault that he was ultimately accused of. Nevertheless, there is a risk in allowing Maryland to enforce its DNA Act for the purpose of only removing violent offenders. King actually acknowledges that DNA collection is beneficial because arrestees are more likely to have committed other crimes but hypothesizes that this logic can also be applied for other subgroups as well. For instance, young men, residents of particular neighborhoods, individuals from particular socioeconomic or educational backgrounds, or any other group that has a high incidence of criminal activity can be accused.
Today, the FBI has DNA records of more than 5 million convicted offenders in the database CODIS, or Combined DNA Index System. However, DNA fingerprinting has limitations: it is limited to directly connecting crimes to felons already in CODIS, has high risk of contamination, does not look at familial records, and only analyzes short pieces of DNA. With the advent of more affordable and high resolution genetic technologies after The Human Genome Project, over 35 million people have submitted their DNA to the largest direct-to-consumer genetic companies. Two companies, FamilyTreeDNA and GEDmatch, also allow law enforcement access to their databases. Thus, beginning investigative genetic genealogy, a new method of forensic investigation not only with higher resolution DNA information than DNA fingerprinting but also the capability of finding a suspect from distant relatives.
In the lab report three students are tested along with one suspect. Student number two’s DNA matched the suspects DNA. The student’s DNA’s are cut with five different enzymes as well as the suspects DNA. Student two’s DNA matched exactly with the suspects DNA; the other two student’s DNA did not resemble the suspects DNA at all. (Choi, et al, 2008) DNA fingerprinting is used a lot in determining who committed a crime.
In King, Justice Kennedy referred to the invention of DNA technology as “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era.” This statement has been criticized, but the impact of DNA technology has been significant. Currently, forensic analysts can use “junk” DNA to identify a person with near certainty. Law enforcement can collect a person’s DNA through saliva. The sample is then uploaded to CODIS, a national network of DNA databases.
The government should make a law requiring a background check for people who want to buy a gun. Background checks keep guns out of unsafe hands. (FBI) "Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm- by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands". The Federal Bureau of Investigation says to use background checks to be more safe. Background checks make sure it is safe to sell an unsafe object to the people.
Profiling and US Amendments Gabriel Anthony Farias Fresno State University Just what is the difference between criminal and racial profiling? Is there a difference? In this essay, I will define and give a brief comparison between the two. I will also define and discuss possible violations of the fourth and fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. At the end, the reader should understand the difference between the two distinct types of profiling, and acknowledge that specific circumstances may cause a violation to one amendment, without directly affecting another.
Compelling Evidence In today’s society, high-tech gadgets and the media have given the impression the essential necessity for forensic evidence in order to convict. Once in a while, cases like the Laci Peterson murder come along with little forensic evidence but a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and motive. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the forensic evidence discovered that led to the conviction and death sentencing of Laci’s husband, Scott Peterson.
Crime Myths Most crimes are solved by fingerprints and DNA. This is a prime example of a crime myth. The truth is less than 1 percent of all serious crimes are solved by DNA, and fingerprints do only slightly better. As mentioned in USA Today titled "Crime and the media: Myths and reality", it discusses some of the important insight to crime in the media causing myths. Another source that covers this topic is in an Irish Times article by O’ Toole, Fintan entitled “Myths that conceal the truth about roots of crime: [CITY EDITION]” it goes over the many aspects that relate to myths that are contributing to the truth about roots of crime.
The Department of Justice says, "States began passing laws requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples. " That DNA evidence can help convict someone of a crime and it helps to uncover more things about the crime itself. Investigators have been using forensic science to help them solve cases since before the 90 's, mostly fingerprints that were found at the crime scenes and on the victims (O 'Brien). DNA evidence has solved countless cases including ones that happened over a prolonged period of time because of the technological advancements there is
Today, practical methods of using fingerprinting are extremely wide. In 1995, the size of the FBI fingerprint card archive contained over 200 million items, and archive size was increasing at the rate of 30,000 to 50,000 new cards per day [2]. Forensic science was the very first and most important area of its application, which still remains. The rapid development of computer technology has made it possible to create such fingerprint scanners that can be installed on laptops, cell phones, flash drives,
DNA in forensic science The majority of cells making up the human body are diploid cells carrying identical DNA, with the exception of haploid gametes and red blood cells. Several types of biological evidence such as blood and hair are commonly used in forensic science, which is the scientific study of evidence for crime scene investigations and other legal matters. Forensic science is used for the purpose of DNA analysis, this is the analysis of DNA samples to determine if it came from a particular individual. DNA analysis is done by obtaining DNA samples from an individual; next, a large sample of DNA is produced from amplified selected sequences from the DNA collected.