Misuse of DNA in Homicide Cases - Dissertation Example

? Misuse of DNA in Homicide Cases Tiffin Jeremy Tipton June 15, Cohort 22 JUS463: Applied Research Design Basic summary I agree that it was difficult to prove whether an individual was the perpetrator of the crime without being spotted on the scene or being arrested at while performing the crime, before the discovery of DNA and its application in solving of crimes. I believe that this made it possible for criminals to avoid arrest since the law enforcers found it difficult to identify the criminal. Coleman, Eric, Dwight, and Teresa, (1994) argue that techniques like facial recognition and the use of information like car plate numbers among other evidence was not efficient in arresting criminals and prosecuting them in a court of law. Law enforcers and the justice system had a breakthrough when DNA profiling was discovered and applied in law enforcement. This method was deemed more effective than other methods in terms of accuracy and efficiency. This is because it was difficult to disprove DNA, evidence since it places an individual in the scene of the crime. Fingerprints were equally effective, but they are easier to be corrupted and offenders have become knowledgeable with time, for example, they do not leave fingerprints behind in crime scenes. DNA, however, is hard to be corrupted, and it is difficult for and individual to conceal it, since DNA is present in tissues and fluids in the body of a person. Krude (2004) shows how DNA has changed the society and science since mitochondria DNA can be obtained from bones and teeth of an individual. Hypothesis Like any other breakthrough, there have been controversies, which have been raised regarding the misuse of DNA especially in homicide case, despite the fact that DNA of an individual is unique and could not match with others; individuals and law enforcement have misused the technology. Data Source and Method of Collection The data collected through holding surveys, which involved doing personal interviews on DNA specialist. Data was also collected through extensive research on existing literature discussing the subject. Variables We had two defendant variables, defensive and retaliatory violence. Defensive violence was measured through identifying two scenarios that involved Method of Analysis In the analysis process, statistical information including graphs and figures were employed and were cross referenced with the information in the literature on DNA in law enforcement. Major findings DNA Sequencing The data collected by Culliford (1994), DNA refers to the genetic instructions vital for the function and development of all living organisms. DNA is unique in each personage with the exclusion of monozygotic twins. DNA profiling, however, is the practice commonly employed by forensic scientists to make out the identity of individuals using their DNA profiles. I believe that these profiles are number sets that are encrypted to reflect an individual’s genetic makeup. This identification method is commonly employed in criminal investigations and paternity tests. This is effective since 99.9% of sequences in human DNA are dissimilar with the exception of monozygotic twins. It is crucial for one to understand the concept of DNA technologies in order to have a better insight on the use of DNA in criminology. History of DNA Profiling According to The technique of DNA, profiling was initially reported in 1984 at the University of Leister. This was through sir Alec Jefferys, a British geneticist who developed a method of DNA fingerprinting and profiling. It is evident that the scientist made this crucial discovery while observing the image of a DNA in an x-ray film. This image showed evidence of some similarities and distinctions in DNA. He used samples of DNA from the different family members of his staff. This enabled him to determine a scope through which DNA fingerprinting could be used to identify individuals using this method. Despite the method being discovered in 1984, it was made commercially available three years later. In the article, Culliford (1994) assures that this was facilitated when an English company opened a center for testing blood in London. This made the technology available for the public and was soon adopted by law enforcement as a method of collecting evidence. The technology was employed in criminal cases, when the British police used blood samples to solve murders, which involved rape. Krude illustrates how Robert Melias was the first ever suspect to be convicted using DNA technology (Krude, 55). In the US, the first DNA based conviction was Tommy Lee Andrews in 1987. Culliford (1994) also confirms that blood sample was matched with the semen found in the victim. Most of the states in the US recognize DNA evidence in their courts with the exception of states like Utah, Maine, and Rhode Island. In Virginia, the first murder trials that employed DNA technology led to the conviction of Timothy Wilson Spencer. It was established that the DNA of the suspect was matched to several victims whereby semen of the suspect was present. The supreme court of the state upheld the judgment, which was the onset of acceptance of DNA evidence in the US. The first case to challenge conviction using DNA evidence was people v. Castro. The defense challenged the admissibility of this evidence type. This was after the suspect was accused of murdering the neighbor’s daughter. The court, however, based its ruling on the argument that, DNA technology was accepted among scientists hence credible. In Minnesota, however, the Supreme Court refused to accept DNA evidence due to the secrecy that surrounded the testing. DNA technology has become overt with time and is accepted in most courts in the US, with 46 states accepting its employment. The Process of DNA Profiling In his book, Krude (2004) affirms that DNA sampling in the collection of evidence, a sample of the individual is required. The sample is mostly collected using a buccal swab hence reducing significantly the chances of contamination. This is, however, not the only method of collecting DNA samples. Samples of body tissues and fluid will suffice and are available in crime scenes. This makes the sample available for the law enforcers for use in solving the crime. In some cases, samples can be collected through biological relatives in that the sample can be used to identify human remains with the condition that they were previously profiled. After a sample is collected and analyzed, scientists are now able to create the DNA profile of a personage. Culliford believes that this is to facilitate for the determination whether the sample matches the profile genetically (Culliford, p178). Forensic scientists use various analysis procedures in carrying out DNA profiling. One of the analyses is the Restricted Fragment Length Polymorphism (RELP) analysis. This process is, however, laborious and requires a large amount of DNA sample, hence was not suitable for solving homicide crimes. DNA technology is dynamic and newer better methods of DNA analysis have been developed. This is evident with the development of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) analysis is a more efficient method than its predecessor is. This is because it was able to replicate DNA by mimicking the natural process. This enables forensic scientists to produce a vast quantity of reproduction of the unique sample. These copies can be produced up to the million fold, which is enough for the exploration. The process is also advantageous, since it takes a short while to produce replicas, in that it takes two hours, or in some cases less, to produce numerous replicas. The technique made it conceivable for forensic scientists to make progressive strides in DNA profiling. This process was, however, not effective in solving crimes that needed DNA to be identified during forensics since the methods were not capable of identifying a sample of DNA from a mixed sample. This was especially ineffective for cases of sexual assault in that the sample collected from the vaginal swab was contaminated. The PCR analysis technology was upgraded further to the Short Tandem Repeats (STR) analysis. The data collected by Coleman, Eric, Dwight, and Teresa, (1994) shows that this process has the ability to discriminate DNA, hence more effective than PCR in criminology. However, in order to avoid contamination, it is imperative that the technician take enough samples to ensure that there are no errors during the process (Coleman, 99). This will facilitate for the repetition of the analysis in order for the scientist to obtain accurate results. This is because homicide is one of the most grievous offences hence; it will be unfortunate if an individual is wrongly accused. Forensic scientists in homicide cases also employ the Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AmpFPL) technique. According to National Research Council (NRC), this technique is popular in countries that have low income due to their low costs. The technique, however, has a likelihood of error caused by the use of gel in the analysis whereby samples may bunch up making it laborious to distinguish them (National Research Council, 63). DNA Database The data collected by Goulka (1996) shows that countries globally have created DNA databases, in order for the analysis of DNA to be successful, Butterfield further states that the leading country in DNA technology is the US with a database containing over 5 million records (Butterfield, 9). This number has grown over time with the development of the technology. There are restrictions in the access of these records; however, law enforcers are given authority to access this information when handling crime. There are also situations whereby countries can exchange DNA data from other countries. In the US, the Patriot Act facilitates such a provision whereby DNA data can be sought internationally. A DNA databank is used to preserve the DNA database for references with samples collected from suspects. In instances where a match is evident from the databank, which is linked to criminal activity, it is referred to as a cold hit. This is because the match has a value for the law enforcement in referring a suspect to a crime. However, the match has a lower value as evidence that matches made externally from the databank of DNA information (Goulka, 6). Considerations in the Evaluation of DNA Evidence On the contrary, I disagree that fingerprint evidence was a reliable method of identifying suspects and linking them to a crime. There were, however, flaws that were normally exploited by defense lawyers, who made the argument that there was a possibility that the fingerprint could match another individual statistically. Statistically, for fingerprint evidence, there is a possibility 1 individual in every 5 million to match. This makes the probability of a fingerprint recurring bigger when a country has a large population. This argument, however, is not sound except in the instance where the suspect was picked randomly from the population. Though this was the case, the argument against fingerprints enabled suspects to be acquitted from the crime. This assumption that there was 1 in 5 million statistical possibility of an individual being innocent from fingerprint incrimination is referred to as the prosecutor’s fallacy. The information collected by Ore confirms that when using DNA analysis however; the probability of the defense to refute the evidence drops significantly. This is because statistically there is 1 in 100 billion chance of a match. This is with the exception of monozygotic twins whose DNA can match (Ore, 32). This makes use of DNA evidence more efficient than any other evidence collection method. This is because the DNA of individuals is unique, hence reliable in identifying homicide suspects. DNA evidence collected from the crime scenes enables the law enforcers to identify suspects, hence creates a case in incidences of murder. According to William (2008), there are, however, incidences where the evidence can be unreliable in that there was contamination of the evidence during analysis (William, 137). DNA evidence is sensitive hence; a slight mistake can lead to the certainty of an individual being wrongfully accused and jailed for homicide. In the article Forensic DNA evidence: National commission, Aspen explores its future it is imperative that the evidence is handled with precision, in order to ensure that individuals are not wrongfully implicated (Asplen, 21). Misuse of DNA in Homicide According to the information collected by Aspen (1999), DNA evidence significantly altered the way law enforcement identify suspects. The technology used the principle that of DNA signatures are unique hence; the technique had little room for error. This made the technology popular in the US justice system whereby court rulings on murder and other cases can be based on DNA evidence. However, there have been skepticisms over the use of this technology in the court of law, especially in sensitive cases like murder. I agree that this is because it is argued that there is room for error in that DNA samples can be corrupted; hence lead to the conviction of an innocent individual. Despite the fact that DNA signatures are unique, they are not foolproof in homicide cases since like fingerprints they can be corrupted, hence become inaccurate. The contamination can occur in the laboratories during analysis, since the sample might be mixed up with other DNA samples hence implicating the wrong individual. Statistics show that, despite the high accuracy in DNA profiling, there is a high margin of error originating from the laboratories. This is because there is secondary transfer due to the interaction with other samples. In instances of Chimerism, though rare, may also alter the result of DNA profiling of a suspect leading to a wrong conviction. Therefore, it is a misuse of this technology when the court relies solely on DNA evidence. Other factors should be included before a conviction is made in cases of homicide. Cases of tampering of DNA samples are not unheard of in that suspects alter their samples to evade conviction. This is evident in a case of rape in Australia, where a doctor John Schneeberger, drugged and raped his patients. When authorities tried using DNA to convict the suspect, they failed since the doctor tampered with his blood sample used in the analysis. According to the article, The DNA “Wars” are over, this was also witnessed more recently in the US, in the District of Columbia, where the Supreme Court convicted Billy Cope for rape and murder. This article shows that this was after DNA analysis was carried out leading to the conviction (www.pbs.org, 1). It was, however, later discovered that the DNA match was, in fact, of another individual, James Sanders. The authorities discovered this, months after the conviction. Even after learning about the mix up, the police did not drop the charges against Cope. They instead charge both individuals despite clear evidence that the DNA evidence did not match Copes sample. The two suspects were jailed together despite the verity that there was no correlation involving the two. The case, due to its suspicious nature, drew attention to irregularities of the case. The attorneys leading the case, John Barton and Sherri Lyndon were famous in the early times in their careers for putting offenders that were known in prison. This because their names were synonymous in several high profile cases, with the most prominent on being the corruption scandal through which their intervention led to the arrest of prominent suspects. The intervention of the lawyers led to the truth that the confessions were obtained illegally, with the murder detectives using tactics to bully an admission out of Cope. The lead prosecutor further admitted that there were inconsistencies in the convictions made during the trial. This is because there was no concrete theory linking the association of the two suspects Cope and Sanders, which could facilitate them to collude to perform the crime hence; it was unlikely that the two suspects performed the crime jointly. Fortunately, the case was overruled, and Cope was vindicated from the crime. The prosecution in this case misused DNA evidence to force a conviction on an innocent man wrongfully (www.pbs.org, 1). Aspen further explains that the incident raised questions among the public on the effectiveness of the use of DNA evidence. The public is skeptical whether law enforcers are ready ethically and technically to use this technology effectively. It is feared that the technology can be used maliciously to convict individuals for crimes since DNA evidence is perceived to be accurate. This has led the prosecution, judges and the jury to rely overly on the evidence as a basis for their judgment. In the mid 1990’s, reports surfaced that the FBI influenced the DNA evidence that was used during the 1993 bombing in New York. Scientists from the lab testified that the FBI meddled with evidence by drafting reports that were falsified and their role in persuading the scientists to perjure their findings. The government agency used their influence to alter the evidence to complement their objectives. This fueled skepticism among the American public on use of the crime lab to make convictions. This misuse of DNA technology tarnished the image of the FBI and the admissibility of the technique in solving crimes. This was because the public created a perception that DNA could easily be manipulated to convict innocent civilians for crimes that they are not guilty of, as accused. Conclusion DNA technology has been a revelation for the war against crime and most importantly homicide. I agree that the technology has led to the conviction of murder suspects who before the technology could evade justice. The use of DNA also enabled the vindication of innocent individuals who were wrongfully convicted. Through the information in a report from the US Justice Department, depicts that in 2002 more than two thirds of the prosecutors in the US, employ DNA testing when carrying investigations. This is because of the fact that DNA is effective and accurate in identifying suspects. This has been made possible through the creation of a database through which samples can be tested. This section has successfully enabled the prosecution to arrest the right perpetrators using minimum time. Though the technology has its advantages, there are instances where some individuals to serve their own purpose misuse it. This is evident in government agencies and individuals who manipulate the process in order to serve their own interests in the law arena. The misuse of this process necessitates for the justice department to come up with measures to prevent such incidences. This is especially crucial in homicide cases, since in the event that an individual is convicted due to being wrongly implicated using the DNA profiling, it will affect the person’s life adversely. This is because the sentences for murder are stiff and in some instances may result in the death of an innocent individual. It is, therefore, crucial for the stakeholders in the justice system, to ensure that the technology is well researched, to reduce chances of error and ensure that there are clear ethical guidelines for its use. Perpetrators of misusing the technology should be subjected to stiff penalties to discourage the practice. References Asplen, Christopher. Forensic DNA evidence: National commission explores its future. National Institute of Justice Journal. 1999. Pp.17-24. Butterfield, Laura F. The DNA tests expected to get a wider use as nationwide database is being developed. News Observer Raleigh. 1996. Pp. 9. Coleman, Howard, Eric Swenson, Dwight Holloway, and Teresa Aulinskas. DNA in the Courtroom. A Trial Watcher's Guide. Seattle, Wash., USA: GeneLex Corp, 1994. Print. Culliford, Bolland. J. The Examination and Typing of Blood Stains in the Crime Laboratory. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1994. Pp. 103–322 Goulka, Jeremiah E. Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2010. Internet resource. Krude, Torsten. DNA: Changing Science and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print. National Research Council. DNA Technology in Forensic Science. Washington, DC: National Academy. 1992. Print. Ore, Timothy M. DNA Analysis: Current and Projected Applications in Forensic Scientific Cases. Pittsburgh, Pa: Pittsburgh Institute of Legal Medicine, 2000. Print. The DNA “Wars” are over. Frontline; Pbs. Accessed at, < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/revolution/wars.html> William, C. Thompson. The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing and How that Complicates the use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification. University of California, Irvine. 2008. Print. Read More