Pros And Cons Of Forensic Dna

Simpson’s defense team argued that it was not good because LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman deliberately planted evidence at the crime scene and tampered with DNA samples (romper.com n.d.). Therefore, Simpson’s lawyer Johnnie Cochran argued that despite all of the DNA evidence found at the scene and the bloody glove did not fit the perpetrator. Furthermore, they argued that there was some contamination to the DNA samples because of the way it was handled. I feel that when the evidence was collected it should have been packaged properly.

Wrongful convictions have plagued the world throughout history. When crimes are committed the public feels ascertain a way about the situation. Depending on the severity of the issues, the last thing the public wants is for the criminals to get away. The pressure intensifies to catch some one for the crime.

Innocent until proven guilty. In this project we are trying to find out which acid Haigh would have been more likely to use, which would be the acid that would decompose a body the quickest. Since we can not perform this experiment on an actual human, we will do this on pig tissue. This experiment would have been more likely done by criminal investigators.

Profiling puts barriers between citizens of a different races because judging someone only by their race gives one a pre-fixed opinion, thus making it difficult to create diversity in a community full of racist people who have created negative images of people. Racial profiling can bring people down in both a financial and personal way which leads to more racial profiling because being affected in these ways encourages one to continue profiling others as they have anger building up which needs to be released. Supporters of racial profiling argue that the use of demographics, statistics, and, information to capture criminals is justified. Also, that if a group commits a crime, they should be stopped. However, critics of the practice argue that the idea of one group committing more crimes than other groups is just untrue, information also points to the idea that profiling is wrong, both legally and ethically.

First, false witnesses are bad in many different ways and can do things to change people's lives. A false witness is a witness that gives a false statement willingly or because he is bribed or blackmailed in a way (O’Grady). This means that anyone can become a false witness and play with the judicial system in a way that usually is not justified or fair. False witnesses are not good to the

B. Whether from evidence or a personal hunch, some interrogators interview suspects as if they are guilty, which causes an incorrect interrogation that leads to extensive stress and pressure. C. But if the investigator approaches the interrogation believing the detainee is guilty, the ensuing interrogation is more pressure-filled and coercive. This results in the innocent detainee (who is likely to waive their rights) being at increased risk for false confession due to the pressure of the interrogation process. (Keene) D.

For instance, if an eyewitness misidentifies a person whom they believe to be the suspect and report that person to the police and the “suspect” reacts out of anger when stopped by police causing an altercation to take place, which often times may be physical. Now that person may be facing charges for a crime they didn’t commit and also may be facing charges for the altercation that occurred during the arrest for the crime they didn’t commit. It is extremely important for eyewitnesses to have a clear and convincing description of the suspect because it can easily cause further complications. It can also ruin an innocent persons life if they are wrongfully convicted of the crime because of the

In an FBI Report, it is said that psychopaths are not a favorable criminal for the law enforcement because they are able to manipulate the interrogations and authorities. During an interrogation, a psychopath will breakdown and lie, saying that it was the victim’s fault. A jury is most likely to be manipulated to give a psychopath a shorter sentence because “psychopaths are very adept at imitating emotions such as remorse or guilt in the courtroom if they believe it will mitigate their punishment” (Bonn, 2016). On average, psychopaths have a 2.5 times chance of getting released than those offenders that are not considered psychopaths. Unlike males, females with psychopathy take up one percent of the

This law usually targets youth and people of color and this is extremly important reasons to stop it. A first example that shows that the law is not legal is that tons of people who get stopped are innocent. The second example that shows the illegality of the law would be that it is a discriminatory and racist law. However, other people have different opinions, other people think that "stop and frisk" help protects people from people that look suspicious and may risk the safety our society. " Stop and frisk" should not be a law because instead of helping and protecting people it discriminates against people and disrespects the.

By using racial profiling, the FBI and CIA were able to identify Arabic terrorists coming into the U.S with weapons and prevent their attack from happening. In addition to tightening security, racial profiling also drops the crime rates in the country. Some police officers have claimed that it's important to include ethnic background when suspecting criminals. Since police officers will target ethnic groups that commit the crimes the most, criminals from those ethnic groups will want to stop their criminal activity in order for them not to get caught. As one commentator suggests, “order to do their jobs and find criminals, they acknowledge the importance of race and ethnicity” (4 Impressive Pros and Cons of Racial Profiling).

In reality, the teenager proved he wasn 't the one who he was looking for, that caused this scenario. Eventually, the assault was caught using the DNA testing. DNA profiling changed the way Americans convicted criminals,

General and Specific deterrence have good and bad effects on citizens. It prevents crime and some cases and fuels the rage in some. General deterrence focuses on preventing the crime before it happens. The thought of spending life in prison for committing a murder is very scary to me. You would think that could deter criminals from committing that crime.

Supposedly capital punishment was created to deter criminals from committing horrible acts of rape and murder, however, today judges and the jury are eager to make anyone the scapegoat for the crimes committed; even the innocent. Nowadays, the judicial system becomes more discriminatory, toward gender, income, and race, in capital crime cases because of the desire to find, what is hoped to be, justice. When someone is convicted of any crime and is in the process of being arrested it is a law that his or her Miranda Rights must be stated before the arrest takes place. One of the major rights stated is “ If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you.” Now, if the person being arrested has a higher income normally the attorney hired is very experienced and can make the most guilty person sound innocent.

They were even able to convince the jurors that there had been misconduct by the LAPD. Alsp, tons of evidence could not be

MacDonald makes a lot of good points about how the politicization of criminal justice can hurt the entire field. I do not agree that racial profiling does not exist, but I do agree that political witch hunts and fishing expeditions are likely to punish good officers and limit their ability to do their jobs, while failing to ensure that minorities are treated equally. An unfortunate but valid point that she offers is that the disproportionate amount of minorities involved in incarceration does not indicate racial profiling, but just that more minorities are committing crimes (Macdonald, 2001). I’d like to say that I’m well aware that crime is a response to poverty, not ethnicity. The disproportionate amount of minorities below the poverty line