The next topic to show why DNA testing is important to law enforcement is the unanalyzed evidence stored away hoping one day to be tested. There was a study done showing over a time frame of five years that there was about 40% of unanalyzed rape and homicide cases that had DNA evidence waiting to be tested. They suspect that there maybe a few causes for this kind of problem. These unanalyzed cases are a part of backlogs and they are terming as cases of justice denied. Some speculate that the investigating officer can be a cause of why evidence is not tested. It would be in situations where there suspect confesses to the crime so they feel there is no need to waste money and time waiting for the DNA tests to come back. Which is a little …show more content…
Without the forensic evidence tested to confirm these confessions, who is to say they really are the suspect the officers are looking for. Another suggestion is that officers are so aware of the backlogs already that if cases are lacking a suspects or lacking in other areas they feel like submitting it will not help either since it will just be added to the backlogs. They actual are correct in a way because evidence is tested in order of importance. Normally the case that get tested first are those where there is a court date set for the suspect because that evidence needs to be done before then. Cases without a suspect is normally put last because there is no specific time frame besides the statute of limitation on the types of crime committed. Sadly the cases without a suspect are the ones that truly need forensics to help obtain justice. Those cases are in a stalled state and with the DNA tested then it can move forward in some type of way, even just adding the unknown sample to CODIS would be a big step …show more content…
This survey found that there was 22,013,113 unsolved property crimes from 2003 to 2007, there was 5,126,719 of those cases that had untested forensic evidence, and it showed that municipal police agencies accounted for 3,986,278 of those cases. There was a total of 150,070 unsolved rape cases and out of those there was 27,595 rapes reported as unsolved containing unanalyzed forensic evidence, and municipal police account for 20,016 of those cases. Lastly there was a total 28,319 unsolved homicide cases and out of those there was 3,975 cases having unanalyzed forensic evidence, and the municipal police account for 3,153 of those unanalyzed cases. It seems by these statistics that the municipal police might want to rethink their policies on evidence testing. With all these types of unsolved cases there is about 12,548 rape and homicide cases that have DNA evidence that has not been submitted for analysis. That means in that five year period there is possible 12,548 murders and rapist out there on the streets. Is that supposed to make people feel safe?
The population of the United States is large but with how many unsolved cases in a five year period just to goes to show you that forensics can help our justice system if only the crime laboratories had the funding to test all cases better. With how
The murder of JonBenet Ramsey is a crime that received national attention and was seen on nightly news stations and talk shows across the country. All of this attention made the case extremely controversial (Saferstein, 2015). It is now over twenty years since the murder occurred and the case still remains unsolved. The development of DNA evidence has played a critical role in the course of this arduous investigation (Saferstein, 2015). Crucial mistakes were made from the very start of the investigation by police and then by the district attorney, Mary Lacy (Saferstein, 2015).
Every day forensic investigators use tactics just like the ones that were discussed throughout the paper. It’s more than just looking for an admission of guilt, and interrogating potential suspects until they
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.
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.
Although, in our lab report, suspect ones DNA matched the crime scene when cut with enzyme one, this can be explained by how closely related the two suspects are. Therefore two enzymes were used to cut the DNA; the suspect has to match both. Moreover, the limitation to DNA fingerprinting is, if a person were to have an identical twin. This is because identical twins have the same DNA because they come from the same egg. If a suspect’s DNA matched that of the one being tested, and they had an identical twin, a farther investigation would need to be done.
The fingerprint evidence is what the case hinged on other than victims
Due to DNA testing now available many cases of wrongful conviction have led them to be exonerated, by a confession from the actual perpetrator or other convincing evidence of innocence that wasn’t available at trail. For a DNA profile to be made they must first find evidence in form of blood, saliva, skin tissue, hair and semen that was recovered from 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.
One of the most accurate methods of connecting a suspect with a crime is through the use of DNA analysis. Even if no fingerprints are left behind at a robbery, for instance, a single strand of hair or skin cell from the thief can be used to positively identify a suspect. Conversely, if a suspect’s DNA does not match samples procured from a crime scene, the use of so-called “genetic fingerprinting” can exonerate, or clear, them. Concern over the issue of wrongful convictions, coupled with a sense of greater trust in DNA analysis over other, more conventional methods of prosecution, such as eyewitness testimony, has led some to call for mandatory DNA testing before any person begins serving a sentence for a serious crime, as well as
Science has come a long way over the years. It has helped countless every day struggles and cure diseases most commonly found. What you don’t hear about however is the advancement of forensic science. Forensic science has helped solve countless cases of murder, rape, and sexual assault. In the case of John Joubert, it helped solve the murders of three young boys with one small piece of evidence that linked him directly to the 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
These wrongful convictions occur because the criminal justice system had many flaws. It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board. The prosecutors "opposed testing, arguing that it would make no difference" whether or not those being convicted got DNA tested (Garrett 1). Confessions was one of the causes that often led to the downfall of those innocently convicted. In the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, the police officer was supposed to conduct the polygraph examination.
However, the using of DNA evidence to judge the offender has to be used very careful. It is possible that the DNA evidence from the testimony is planted. For example, the O.J. Simpson case that the lab officer planted the DNA evidence. The American Supreme Court ruled out that evidence because it was obtained from illegal doing, even if it is proved that it’s the Simpson’s blood. Simon A. Cole note that the Simpson case was not concerned with only the admissibility of DNA evidence but also was related to the issues of race, class and gender in the United States.