Technology in Criminal Justice Management - Research Paper Example

Technology in Criminal Justice Management of the of the Technology in Criminal Justice Management Introduction Forensic science has been revolutionized due to the advent of DNA fingerprinting. With the exception of identical twins, no two individuals can possess the very same DNA pattern. Obviously, technologies based on DNA have vast social implications and can prove to be of great value in combating crime. DNA based technology has undergone vast change and has witnessed several important discoveries. A number of ethical issues are raised on account of DNA testing, and this renders it a matter of serious concern (Varsha, 2006, p. 181). As such, the contemporary criminal justice system utilizes Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profiling to a major extent. DNA profiles are founded on non – coding DNA and do not disclose the details related to an individual’s physical appearance. This has been one of the major factors that have made such evidence acceptable (MCharek, 2008, p. 519). DNA profiling has achieved phenomenal success in criminal investigation. Moreover, this feature, in association with the major breakthroughs in the field of genetics has greatly enhanced the value of evidence based on DNA profiling. The present day DNA evidence is not restricted to identification, wherein trace evidence is compared with a suspect’s sample (MCharek, 2008, p. 519). As such, DNA profiling is much more and it has the capacity to generate information about the potential offender. One such development is the inference of visible traits, which is founded on racial classifications (MCharek, 2008, p. 519). By employing more sensitive methods that are based upon the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in conjunction with multiplex marker kits, it has become possible to analyze minute and degenerated biological trace evidence. Furthermore, the volume of DNA profiles produced has increased drastically, due to the introduction of capillary DNA sequencing machines (MCharek, 2008, p. 520). These devices make it possible to achieve a much higher rate of processing samples. This increase has also been attributed to the compilation of DNA databanks, and the additional standardization of working procedures. However, these developments have created several new political and ethical problems (MCharek, 2008, p. 520). In addition, these issues can be classified as difficulties emerging from the use of DNA profiling as a tool for investigation. In the initial stages of the use of this new technology, DNA evidence had functioned as a technology enabling identification. The issue at that time was to determine whether a correlation could be established between a suspect and a biological trace (MCharek, 2008, p. 520). This aspect of DNA evidence continues to be crucial. All the same, the existence of enormous databanks has made it possible to create a suspect by establishing a match between a profile generated from biological trace evidence and a profile available in these databanks (MCharek, 2008, p. 520). However, there is a vast amount of biological evidence and DNA samples that have been collected from crime scenes. Most of this material has not been analyzed, and this presents one of the major difficulties being envisaged by the contemporary criminal justice system. Several of the grave travesties of justice that transpire in the US can be averted, if there is timely analysis of crime scene samples (The United States Department of Justice, 2003). Impact of DNA Technology on Criminal Justice System In the present era, the administration of criminal justice has been undergoing a transformation, due to the new technology. One of the major causes for such change is the development of DNA technology that has applications in forensic science. Such technology comprises of a forensic assay that has the latency to generate discrimination on an enormous scale (Cole, 2007, p. 95). Moreover, it has also resulted in gigantic databases that are based on the forensic assay. The US criminal justice system is replete with discrimination based on race, ethnicity and class. The novel forensic DNA technology has the capacity to impact this system in a significant manner (Cole, 2007, p. 95). For instance, many individuals on death row were acquitted, due to this technology, which had established their innocence. Due to the development of this technology, there have been several outcomes. One of these is the increasing dependence on DNA material obtained from the scene of the crime in investigations. Another major development has been the generation of a gigantic database of generic profiles (Cole, 2007, p. 95). However, it has been contended by its supporters that DNA based forensic techniques will have a leveling effect on the highly biased criminal justice system. However, there is every possibility that the prevailing discrimination will be further promoted by this technology (Cole, 2007, p. 95). The DNA material procured from the scene of a crime, will be from an environment that differs considerably from that of the laboratory. This holds good in all the cases, and the laboratory environment will always by endowed with greater immaculateness. Moreover, the biological sample obtained from a crime scene will be in a small quantity. This makes it all the more essential to conduct an accurate analysis of the sample so obtained (Butler, 2005, p. 145). As such, the forensic scientist may obtain material in quantities that permit just a single analysis. However, DNA material tends to be undergo degradation, due to exposure to the environment, which breaks such material randomly into smaller components. In addition, water and certain enzymes termed nucleases seriously affect the survival of DNA material. As is well known, these enzymes and water are to be found in every place (Butler, 2005, p. 146). In the past, the available technologies had been unable to analyze such degraded DNA samples. For instance, the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RELP) technology had been singularly incapable of analyzing such material. In fact, the RELP techniques had required the presence of high molecular weight DNA molecules in the sample. The presence of these high molecular weight molecules had been essential for detecting large variable number of tandem repeats alleles (Butler, 2005, p. 146). Moreover, the members of the political class across the globe, have strongly promoted the use of forensic DNA technology in the investigation of burglaries, theft, and other high volume crimes. In the modern world, DNA based technology plays a crucial role in criminal procedure. In general, the public supports and accepts the collection of biological samples from suspected individuals, the registering of DNA profiles, and the use of DNA evidence in prosecutions (Aarli, 2012, p. 3). Despite the tremendous benefits derived from forensic DNA technology, it does suffer from its share of disadvantages. The criminal justice system has been considerably influenced by this novel genetic justice regime. A criminal process that depends upon DNA evidence to identify the perpetrators of a crime will necessarily incorporate an enhanced concentration on objective and scientific forms of argumentation in the court. In addition, the use of DNA evidence has the capacity to alienate further, the offender from the community (Aarli, 2012, p. 3). Furthermore, it could make it very difficult to arouse the latent morality of the offender, via the criminal process. Forensic DNA technology has been in vogue since the 1980s, in order to identify suspects. All the same, the lawful obtention of biological samples from individuals suspected of having committed high volume crimes has been a recent development, in most of the European nations (Aarli, 2012, p. 3). Principal Stakeholders in the Criminal justice System The principal stakeholders of the criminal justice system are judges, jurors, expert witnesses, attorneys, and defendants. Their expectations of forensic science and the criminal justice system tend to be divergent. Forensic science is fundamentally deemed a means to an end by the members of the legal community (Pyrek, 2007, p. 50). As such, in most of the cases, physical forensic evidence and its analysis by scientific principles constitutes the mechanism by which criminal cases are tried. From the perspective of the prosecution, forensic science is the system that is employed to incriminate a defendant (Pyrek, 2007, p. 50). On the other hand, the defense views forensic science as the principal adversary to be demolished. Moreover, the judge considers forensic science to be the balance on which the innocence or guilt is to be measured. Furthermore, jurors consider forensic science as a critical tool for arriving at a decision. Finally, law enforcement regards forensic science as the device through which theories and leads are to be confirmed (Pyrek, 2007, p. 50). Thus, the perspective of each stakeholder in the criminal justice system, with respect to forensic science, is distinct and different from the perspectives of the other stakeholders. In addition, one of the crucial stages in the scientific investigation of a case is that of responding to a crime scene. The investigation could be seriously compromised if the crime scene response is flawed. It is the task of the crime scene specialists to identify, secure, collect and preserve evidence submitted to the crime laboratory. Knowledge regarding documentation at the crime scene and the different methods for collecting and processing evidence is crucial (nfstc, n.d.). Moreover, there are several sources of DNA, such as blood, bone, hair, saliva, and teeth. The human body consists of a large number of copies of DNA, consequently, even a tiny quantity of body fluids or tissue is sufficient to provide useful information. Moreover, there is no necessity to perform an invasive intervention to obtain a DNA sample. For instance, a swab of the inside of the oral cavity is sufficient to procure saliva (James, 2012) In addition, DNA is to be found in every cell. Furthermore, 99% of the DNA in the people is the same. The remaining one percent causes an individual’s DNA to differ from that of the others. With the frequent breakthroughs in this area, lesser amounts of material tend to suffice for establishing the identity of a person. For instance, present day scientists have now a technology at their disposal, which enables them to multiply the DNA procured from miniscule amounts of evidence. In one instance, a single strand of hair in the victim’s throat provided the critical evidence in a conviction for murder (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 116). As such, DNA is present in the blood, hair, saliva, and semen. It can be found on the mouth opening of ski masks, and postage stamps. An instance is provided by the case of Brewer v Mississippi, wherein Brewer was sentenced to death for having murdered the daughter of his previous girlfriend. The crucial evidence was provided by an orthodontist who confirmed that the bite marks on the girl were produced by Brewer’s teeth (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 116). Despite its reliability, DNA evidence has to satisfy the requirements of the baseline test of relevancy. The Federal Rules of Evidence have defined relevant evidence as evidence with the capacity to make any fact with a bearing on the determination of the action either less or more probable on account of its presence (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 117). DNA evidence on being determined to be relevant is subjected to two legal standards, in order to determine its admissibility. These are the Daubert and Frye standards. The initial test for determining the admissibility of DNA evidence was developed in Frye v United States. The court ruled in that case that the scientific evidence had to be adequately established to gain general acceptance in the specific field to which it pertained (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 117). The Frye standard was developed with respect to the admissibility of the polygraph test as evidence, in the US. The subsequent attempts to apply this standard by the federal and state courts to scientific evidentiary standards resulted in several difficulties. The chief drawback with the Frye standard was that it concentrated upon the general reliability of the scientific test in its entirety, rather than on a specific piece of evidence (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 118). However, some of the difficulties associated with this test were that it was difficult to determine the evidence required to demonstrate that the claims of an expert were accepted in an expert community. In addition, it was difficult to identify such expert communities. Moreover, this standard did not accommodate new principles and tests. This led the courts to conclude that a better test was required to determine the admissibility of reliable scientific evidence (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 118). This was the Daubert standard, which was established in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. This standard rejected the Frye standard and promoted a flexible reliability standard. The US Supreme Court, in this case, declared that nowhere in the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert evidence there was an indication that general acceptance was essential for admitting scientific evidence (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 119). Drawbacks of the DNA Technology A major difficulty associated with DNA evidence is that there are a number of testing procedures. Moreover, there is no uniformity among the courts with regard to accepting any single procedure related to DNA weight and admissibility. In fact, the defendant had contended in State v Taylor that the particular variety of DNA test employed in that case was unreliable (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 119). However, this was rejected by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, which opined that the testing procedure used had gained general acceptance in the community. Nevertheless, the presence of several DNA testing procedures makes it difficult for the courts to determine whether a particular test is reliable and accepted in the community (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 119). Hence, the courts rely on expert evidence, while taking decisions based on DNA proof. The availability of DNA evidence makes it possible to establish innocence with regard to an individual who has been wrongly convicted of a crime. This assumes significance in the US, where the sentencing rate is very high, and where there is considerable discrimination against the poor and the ethnic minorities. However, the onus rests upon the wrongly convicted person to convince a court to rehear the case (Behrouzfard, 2006, p. 120). This is a burdensome reality, in the context of vulnerable people. Conclusion DNA evidence has a major impact upon the criminal justice system, due to its evidence being powerful and versatile. Moreover, DNA evidence has a number of applications, and it not only convicts but also sets accused individuals free. Its use in the criminal justice system has been hailed as the greatest developments since the introduction of fingerprinting. DNA analysis is a powerful method, since the DNA of an individual is unique. In addition, a positive feature of the DNA evidence is that it retains its importance as evidence over very long periods. In addition, its probative values increase in direct proportion to technological advances and growing databases. This development improves its capacity to identify the perpetrators of a crime and eliminating suspects. From the above discussion, it can be surmised that DNA technology is a boon to the criminal justice system in evidentiary issues. Although there are some drawbacks to this novel genetic technology system, it is a powerful method of investigating crime scene evidence. . References Aarli, R. (2012). Genetic justice and transformations of criminal procedure. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 13(1), 3 – 21. Behrouzfard, N. R. (2006). Strengths, Limitations, and Controversies of DNA Evidence. UMass Law Journal, 1, 110 – 141. Butler, J. M. (2005). Forensic DNA Typing : Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers. Burlington, MA, USA: Elsevier Science. Cole, S. A. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Science & Public Policy, 34(2), 95 – 107. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 US 579 (Supreme Court of the United States June 28, 1993). Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 (1923). James, N. (2012). DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants, and Issues . Washington, D.C. USA: Congressional Research Service . Kennedy Brewer v State of Mississippi, No. 1999 – DR – 00589 – SCT (March 23, 2000). MCharek, A. (2008). DNA Evidence and the Inference of Visible Traits. Bioethics, 22(9), 519 – 528. nfstc. (n.d.). Evidence & DNA. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from DNA Analyst Training: http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_00.htm Pyrek, K. (2007). Forensic Science under Siege : The Challenges of Forensic Laboratories and the Medico-Legal Investigation System. Burlington, MA, USA: Academic Press. State v Taylor, 656 N W 2d 885 (2003). The United States Department of Justice. (2003, March). Advancing Justice through DNA Technology. Retrieved July 1, 2013, from http://www.justice.gov/ag/dnapolicybook_solve_crimes.htm Varsha. (2006). DNA Fingerprinting in the Criminal Justice System: An Overview. DNA and Cell Biology, 25(3), 181 – 188. Read More