like if the samples gathered from a crime scene may give a positive results with the DNA of a suspect. This could be used as proof that the suspect had been available at the crime scene – yet it doesn't say that the suspect carried out the crime and did the wrongdoing thing on the place of the investigation. DNA proof alone is not enough to solve a crime It is most valuable when put close by other confirmation, for example, fingerprints, foot shaped impressions, wrongdoing scene examination and observer accounts. Other biological proofs might be gathered, like blood splash examples (demonstrating the direction of the damage) and microbial data (which may give pieces of information as to the time of death). DNA databanks In New Zealand there is a databank of DNA profiles.
Innocent people have and are still dying today. Deceptive Forensic evidence and a poor legal team are one of the causes of receiving the death penalty. Even though new technologies also help catch criminals, not every crime is technology based. Some trials are based on confessions and testimonies. Others commit perjury, make false accusations, and confessions to protect themselves, or someone else.
The technology advancements alone have led to several cold cases freeing the wrongfully convicted. What are some of the contributing factors wrongful convictions? There is no way to make a right for the justice system can do for those wrongfully convicted. The loss of time however, there have been some initiatives about compensation for the errors that have happen. The public opinion is so strong when it comes to catching these criminals.
Furthermore, everything should have been labeled and placed on an evidence log to ensure that it was the DNA from the actual crime scene. Although, it could have been Mr. Simpson DNA if the proper protocol had been followed they may have been able to get a guilty verdict on the double murder as well as a life sentence. I feel that given all of the fact and evidence in the case that the court did make the right decision. Unfortunately, if the evidence has been contaminated it cannot be used in court and that makes a big difference in a case. Therefore, this case showed the nation that if the evidence does not fit the crime than there is no possible way to find someone guilty of a crime because there is no physical evidence to prove that they actually committed the
There has been many claims that the death penalty should not be allowed because there is a chance that the criminal is innocent. This has been proven true by DNA tests of the prosecuted in the past. The DNA tests show that the person who was sentenced to the death penalty was actually innocent. Now we have these DNA tests that can be used to prove or disprove the accused before they are sentenced. We can now be sure that who we are executing is actually the criminal.
intro Cognitive psychology is one of the very important areas in psychology. It is concerned with mental processes, such as how people think, learn, perceive and remember. In certain situations, an individual’s memory can seal someone’s faith. If a person has been present to a crime, their perception and their memory are seen as crucial to identifying the person who has committed the crime. Before DNA analysis found its way into courtrooms in 1986, eyewitness testimony was seen as the most persuasive form of evidence.
In the past, an officer had relied on forensic methods that are much less accurate and that are being proved to be unreliable today. Statistics show that 36% of exonerated cases involved unreliable or limited science. (Collins, 2009) For example, DNA evidence is now the standard as opposed to previous methods of fingerprinting, and hair analysis. With the widespread acceptance of DNA testing, criminals can now be convicted with much more accuracy. Checks and balances must be in place to defend against improper expert testimony and junk science practices.
However, even with the lack of matching DNA evidence, the boys were still convicted of the crime; they had confessed to the crime. Confessions are irresistibly persuasive, and the effects cannot be reversed. Once a confession is given, it corrupts everything else, trumping DNA evidence and even changing witness testimonies. With the prosecutor’s argument of “just because we didn’t get all of them doesn’t mean we didn’t get all of them,” the public was completely convinced that the boys had committed the crime, and once a strong belief that somebody is guilty of a crime is formed, the contradictory details do not matter. The evidence may not fit the accusation, but they do not fundamentally change the belief in their guilt.
It is necessary for those who refuse to accept unjust administration of punishment. Capital punishment is often justified by saying that by executing the murders birth of new murders would be prevented. Executions especially when they are more painful and public create a sense of horror and halts those tempted towards criminality to violate laws. In countries such as Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Nigeria and New York crime rates are exceptionally high and this affects the population there. The police also works inefficiently in these countries and the criminals easily escape from punishments.
There are numerous things in this society which ought to be banned however the death penalty is not one of them. It is most likely the right approach to go the extent that capital order is concerned. At this moment in our nation, I think that it crazy that criminals believe that they can escape with pretty much anything. My argument for this essay is that death penalty is a resource for society; it discourages potential criminals and also serves retaliation to criminals, and is not the slightest bit indecent. The death penalty can be a greatly valuable device in sentencing criminals that have perpetrated a portion of the most exceedingly terrible crimes known to society.
This research looks at type of eyewitness identification called CMEI, which claims that certain crimes will instantly stimulate precise stereotypes about a suspects looks. Dependence of this relies on how much the suspect looks or does not look like themselves, and thus the eyewitness may recall the suspect looking like them or not at all (Osborne & Davis, 2014). Much research done previously also supports the idea of CMEI, and therefor will support the current research.
In a study, 77.2% of profiling reports provided by the FBI was indeed considered useful in providing an outside perspective on a case and in helping to focus on the investigation. Criminal profiling may be misused by several law enforcement officials but you can not deny that has been a legitimate investigation tool for many years. With the progression of criminal profiling there is going to be misuse and misconceptions however, you can’t discredit the beneficial analysis that profiling brings. It’s efficiency in providing insight to the investigators showcased how a setback like racial misuse won’t interfere with getting the crime solved at the end of the
I feel that DNA is the only reliable forensic tool because its principles are example of real science. Mentioned in the video, forensic science was developed by law enforcement, but DNA analysis was developed by medical science. A much more reliable source. There may be certain situations where DNA isn’t the best tool to go off of. Like for example if there isn’t an enough quantity of it at the scene of a crime or if it has been mixed with someone else’s (Kaye and Sensabaugh, 2000).
However, a defendant might accept a plea bargain from the prosecution before trial, because the evidence against them is overwhelming. If that is not the case, the prosecution will have to prove their case to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, and the defendant should have to serve jail or prison time for their punishment as a result of their crime. In conclusion, many people believe the Texas Judicial Branch needs refurbishing for the 21st century. However, the Texas Judicial Branch operates efficiently now despite some minor issues that critics perceive as inadequate for the 21st century. Perhaps in the future, some areas of our judicial system could be streamlined to better meet the needs of our society as we grow our ever more diverse society here in the state of Texas.