The Individual And Technology - A Contemporary Issue

crime scene could be analyzed and compared with a sample from a suspect. A match could place

Contamination can occur when transferring DNA or the collection of DNA evidence. In the case involving Mr. Farah, he was wrongful charged of rape although he had appealed in the High Court with the basis of the scientists not having said he was undisputedly the perpetrator. The scientists said that it was a very small chance that it was not Mr. Farah which he argued was still a reasonable doubt. The judges dismissed the case within twenty minutes but it was later found that the evidence was contaminated. Other examples include R v. Rendell (1999) and R v. Carroll (2002.)Though technology is advancing, the process of collecting, processing and analyzing DNA has faults. There needs to be more training, procedures and checks put in place for the system to be effective. Faults in evidence presents to be ineffective justice as although the jury weighed up the evidence, there was inadequate access to allow him to refute the claims and lead to wrongful convictions.

This research report researched hundreds of cases where post-conviction DNA was used in cases of exoneration. This researched preformed different tests on available physical evidence. This research report is full of data and case studies to be compared to.

Identification means the steps needed in the analysis of unknown fluids to see what the substance is (“Biology,” 2016). Individualization determines whether a certain individual may or may not be the donor of a bodily substance by examining various markers (“Biology,” 2016). Processing biological trace evidence uses highly complex, automated technology to create a DNA profile that helps the investigators through the association of suspects to victims and to crime scenes (“Biology Services,” 2017). By using techniques such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), forensic biologists can use variable markers found on the regular chromosomes (STR’s), the sex chromosomes (Y-STR’s) and within the mitochondrial DNA to distinguish one person’s DNA from another to a high degree of certainty (“Biology,” 2016). Forensic biologists are involved in assisting investigative agencies because police were led to Bernardo by a police sketch (“Serial Killers: Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka,” 2013). The police took DNA (hair, blood and saliva) from Bernardo as a matter of routine to test it against specimens found on a rape victim’s clothing (Butts, n.d.). Forensic biologists were able to name the substances left on Kristen French’s body and match it to Bernardo’s DNA by processing it. On February 17th, 1995, Bernardo was arrested for the murders of Mahaffy, French, and the Scarborough rapes (Butts,

DNA testing is the most accurate way to identify an individual, and should therefore be used to increase the effectiveness of our justice system. This brings to light the issue of genetic privacy. Society questions the motives of government in DNA collection and floods the media, which acts as an informal actor on the court, with ideas of this invasion of privacy and encroachment of biological liberties. The 2010 article, Create a National DNA Database? stated that “such sensitive information is prone to misuse, and one should not have such blind faith in the security of government access to it.” EPIC, the electronic privacy

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

Forensic DNA Phenotyping is a new and emerging field of forensic science. As it is so new, there is very little in terms of literature on this field, very little testing done on this type of identification, and few cases that have used DNA Phenotyping to assist in the investigation. The first documented case of DNA Phenotyping being used is in the early 2000s, so it has had under 20 years of research and experimentation with it. There are many weaknesses to the version of DNA Phenotyping that is available for use so far, but once there is more research done on it, and more experimentation with this new science, DNA Phenotyping could easily be a major tool to investigators around the world.

I. Before the 1980’s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics.

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

Because there are many different types of crimes, it is often difficult to find enough physical evidence to convict a person. For example, in rape cases there is usually only a small amount of physical evidence, so cases are based on word alone. Because of DNA testing we can now take samples from the victim and attempt to match the results with those of the suspect. Therefore, DNA is sometimes the only real way of determining the guilt or innocence of a suspect without having any witnesses. Since many rape cases are left unsolved, DNA testing is believed to be the most accurate way of keeping sex offenders off the street. Because of the growing trend of using DNA in rape cases especially, a company in Brooklyn now advertises a small flashlight-like device intended to be used to jab at attackers in order to collect a sample of his skin for later use (Adler). According to a study by Joseph Peterson, with the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois, DNA evidence does not have a major impact on the decision to either convict or acquit

“In 1984, a British geneticist named Alec Jeffreys stumbled upon one of our most important forensic tools: DNA fingerprinting. Since his “eureka moment,” the scientific technique has been used successfully to identify perpetrators of a crime, clarify paternity and exonerate people wrongly convicted” (Jones). DNA evidence, specifically simple-mixture, is the most accurate type of forensic evidence we currently have at our disposal, but even it is not infallible. Other types of forensic evidence are much less accurate, but unfortunately their use is still permitted in U.S courtrooms. Jurors may be misled by experts within the courtroom as well. These misconceptions about the accuracy of forensic science and the field in general lead to many problems in the courtroom.

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

Recent advancements in DNA technology have improved law enforcement’s ability to use DNA to solve old cases. Original forensic applications of DNA analysis were developed using a technology called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Although very old cases (more than 10 years) may not have had RFLP analysis done, this kind of DNA testing may have been attempted on more recent unsolved cases. However, because RFLP analysis required a relatively large quantity of DNA, testing may not have been successful. Similarly, biological evidence deemed insufficient in size for testing may not have been previously submitted for testing. Also, if a biological sample was degraded by environmental factors such as dirt or mold, RFLP analysis may have been unsuccessful at yielding a result (Turman).

Another work by Jobling and Gill, it states that the DNA analysis has beenknown to become a crucial and in day to day life as part of modern forensic casework, alluringhighlyperceptive PCR(Polymerase Chain Reaction) based techniques to analyze the biological material. Suspects can be companion to crime scenes, or one crime scene to another, using DNA evidence from arestricted as the saliva on a cigarette butt, skin cells on steering wheel or pet hairs on clothing. Large DNA databases can be quicklyquestion formally and systematically for matches to a DNA profiles at the crime scene, or even half matches to close relatives of a criminal. Unexamined 'cold' cases involving the sexual assault can be solved decades after investigations were begun by studying depraved DNA from stored swabs or microscope slides. However, they noted that the DNA evidence must always be studied within the framework of other evidence off

Throughout the years technology has come an extensive way, resulting in the Criminal Justice System to improve their ways to catch criminals. One of these ways includes, DNA Fingerprinting. This reveals an opportunity for Crime Scene Analyst to have a greater possibility to capture criminals; a greater chance than DNA itself.