Making Sense of DNA Backlogs. Evidence Backlog Epidemic - Research Paper Example

? Evidence Backlog Epidemic Number Introduction The fight against crime and the need to improve the criminal justice system have seen DNA profiling and law enforcement integrated. In this case, forensic scientists help in the identification of criminals or crucial leads by looking at DNA profiles. The crux of the matter herein is that organisms leave behind their DNA in any interaction with the environment. Apart from the usual fingerprint analysis, the use of DNA evidence is employed in other relatable areas such as footwear evidence, accounting crimes, vein matching, glove-print analysis and body identification, among others. This means that the use of DNA evidence plays a pivotal role in crime scene investigations, analyzing trace evidence and skid marks. Nevertheless, despite the magnanimity that comes with the use of DNA evidence, the backlog epidemic that is constantly accosting it is undermining its usefulness. Several factors underpin the DNA evidence backlog, as shall be seen forthwith. The seriousness of the matter concerning DNA evidence backlog is compounded by the fact that cases are considered backlogged if 90 days elapse without the DNA evidence having been analyzed, or when the DNA evidence has not been subjected to analysis and the final report tabled before the agency that submitted the DNA evidence. Because of this, the DNA backlog can be split into: arrestee; casework; and convicted offender DNA backlog. The main cause of the buildup in coursework DNA backlog is the very nature of coursework DNA gathering exercise. Given that forensic evidence is herein gathered from crime scene, suspects and victims of crime before being taken to laboratory, processing this kind of evidence consumes time. This is because the evidence must be screened to establish the presence of biological materials. After the detecting the presence of biological material, the nature of the biological material must then be determined. Subsequently, the DNA testing begins. In the event that further complications are brought about by degrading and fragmenting of the DNA evidence from multiple victims or suspects, then more time will be required to solve the complication, and thereby making the process more protracted (Nelson, 2010). The foregoing is not the case with the arrestee and the convicted offender DNA which is less amenable to backlogs. This is because, in the arrestee and convicted offender DNA, there are identical media such as paper products which help in analyzing samples. At the same time, standardized collection methods are available to facilitate forensic laboratories to subject different samples to automated analysis at one go. Similarly, arrestee and convicted offender DNA evidence can be subjected to robotic platforms to process several score of samples in a 96-sample format. Additionally, unlike the case of casework DNA sample, the laboratory analyst needs not find the DNA sample amidst the evidence obtained. This means that the DNA evidence backlog is specific to the nature of DNA evidence analysis. Another factor that contributes to the DNA evidence backlog is untested evidence that has been gathered from the scene of crime and kept in law enforcement evidence rooms, without having been submitted to the to laboratories for analysis. The crux of the matter herein is that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) treats untested evidence that is awaiting submission to laboratories for analysis, as a matter that is different and separate from the backlogs in the DNA crime laboratories. Because of this, programs for federal funding that are geared towards assuaging the backlogs in crime laboratories do not cover the gathering, storage and handling of untested evidence even as such evidence continue to stay in the premises of law enforcement agencies (National Institute of Justice, 2010). The import of the foregoing is that the measures that Ohio is putting in place to alleviate the DNA evidence backlog may not work. Going by the Washington Crime News’ report (2002), even as Ohio uses 2.2 million US dollars to abate the more than 3,000 cases of untested DNA samples, Ohio’s initiatives are still set up for a certain degree of failure. This is the case as long as the NIJ continues to treat untested evidence that awaits submission to laboratories as a separate matter (Fischer, 2001). Again, complacency among law enforcers towards DNA evidence is a serious impediment. It is reported that half of the police force do not take rape kits seriously. The Prosecutor of Wayne County, Michigan, Kim Worthy divulges that when the American Association of Jurists (Wayne County) noted this problem, it wrote to the Chief of Police in 2010. However, the Chief of Police would continue to ignore the American Association of Jurists over the matter, for six months before responding. This shows that this indifference towards the use of DNA evidence continues to plague the police force’s rank and file (Grassley, 2009). Recommendation The onus is not only upon the government or public sector to concert efforts that will help decrease the DNA evidence backlog. Particularly, the civil society has to increase its watch on the reforms that are being carried in nationwide crime laboratories. The gravity of this postulation is given credence by the developments in the New York City. In 2002 and before, New York had a backlog of rape evidence testing and analysis amounting to 16,000. However, as the Human Rights Watch began to vigorously track on this development, New York City has been tabling results between 30 and 90 days, according to the Human Rights Watch Report. The same is the case with Los Angeles which had a backlog exceeding 2,000 rape kits of DNA evidence. The seriousness in the case of Los Angeles is that they ran past one year, after requests had made upon them (Nelson, 2010). It is also important that testing centers and experts increase the size of their staff by 73%, so as to meet the demand for DNA evidence. Most experts such as Wilson and Forman (2011) are poignant that the most formidable challenge in meeting this demand is funding. The same is categorical that because of limited funding, there is limited capacity in laboratories. Laboratories are consequently compelled to prioritize cases based on court dates or the apprehension of a suspect. The magnitude of the need for more funding is underscored by the fact that processing and testing a rape kit costs between 900 and 1,000 US dollars. The need for the NIJ to subject the police force to sanctions on the use of DNA evidence cannot be sidestepped. Unless correctional stimuli are placed upon the police force to encourage the use of DNA evidence, the US will continually grapple with the problem of evidence backlog epidemic. It is also imperative that the government devolves the use and access of DNA evidence. That the dispersal of the DNA evidence is not devolved enough is not an issue of grassroots distribution but that of accreditation. The failure to give local forensic institutions accreditation undermines the confidence that the locals may have towards these institutions. This development shows readily in the inordinate rates of demand in different levels of representation. According to Targeted News Services (2012), in 2009, 61% of the requests that were made for forensic biology services were leveled towards federal laboratories. Those that were leveled towards state laboratories accounted for 46%, while the county and municipal laboratories accounted for 10%. The import of this is that state, county and municipal forensic laboratories must be appraised and improvements made in areas of need. Conclusion That the issue of DNA evidence backlog epidemic is too serious to be sidestepped is underscored by its direct relation to law enforcement. The government and the American society can only maintain a positive attitude towards sensitive law enforcement matters such as sexual assault crimes, by strengthening the use of DNA evidence. It is only by collecting, storing properly, testing and analyzing DNA evidence that cases will be prosecuted and public confidence towards America’s criminal justice system restored. References Fischer, E. A. (2001). DNA Evidence: Legislative Initiatives in the 106th Congress: RL30694. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1 (26), 29. Grassley, C. (2009). DNA Evidence and Rape Cases. FDCH Congressional Testimony, 12 (15), 10. National Institute of Justice. (2010). National Institute of Justice Journal, for June 2010. National Institute of Justice Journal, 10 (26), 56-78. Nelson, M. (2010). Making Sense of DNA Backlogs - Myths vs. Reality. National Institute of Justice Journal, 13 (266), 20-25. Targeted News Services. (2012). Nearly 1.2 Million Forensic Requests to Public Crime Laboratories Were Backlogged At Yearend 2009, As Unchanged From 2008. Public Administration: Report Information from ProQuest, 3 (8), 3. Washington Crime News. (2002). Ohio Institutes Plan to Cut DNA Backlog. Crime Control Digest, 36 (24), 2. Wilson, R. S. & Forman, L. (2011).Untangling the Helix: Law Enforcement and DNA. Corrections Today, 61 (3), 20. Read More