Fingerprinting Technologies in Forensics - Essay Example

Forensics Introduction: The scientific evidence that would be considered in this study would be that of Ddeoxyribonucleic Acid or simply DNA testing, or DNA profiling, or fingerprinting. In real terms the presence of DNA clues in a crime location could make all the difference between return of a guilty verdict, or the exoneration of a suspect. Crime fighters and forensic experts make good use of DNA profiling by matching DNA profiles found at the site of crimes with the DNA records stored in the database of law enforcement authorities. Over the years of its useful application for major tests, and successful accomplishment as a major crime detector, DNA has, perhaps through trials and errors, evolved as a complete science in itself, earning itself a permanent position in the annals of criminal justice procedures. From a humble beginning during the 19th Century without much data support to prove its credibility and usefulness, it has now evolved as an empirical and objective science on its own merits and rights. History and development of scientific evidence: Over the years, it was discovered, perhaps by accident, way back in 1868, by a Swiss biologist called Friedrich Meischer when he was differentiating nucleus properties in pus cells. Since then, DNA profiling has come a long way and has been used to provide due judicial process of justice in many criminal and non criminal cases. The theory that underpins DNA is that it is virtually impossible for the DNA profiles of any two given persons (except biological twins) to be the same. During the mid eighties, Alec Jeffreys and colleagues researching DNA fingerprinting at the University of Leicester arrived at certain startling facts (at that period of history) regarding the fact that “individual differences in based on repeat sequences in DNA.” Do occur that could help in criminal investigation. (Johnson & Williams, 2006). Further it was also seen that “The possibility of deriving DNA from the ‘abandoned property’ of criminal suspects left at crime scene generated huge interest amongst police investigators.” and could even assist result in cracking major criminal cases, where the perpetrators could remain at large due to lack of incriminating evidence against them. (Johnson & Williams, 2006, para.18). Since then, there have been many improvements in determining the speed, efficacy and conclusiveness of DNA profiling and its impact upon society as a composite and complete science. Over time dedicated DNA Scientific Research Centers have also been operationalised to aid and abet solving of social and criminal issues through the deployment of DNA profiling. These efforts have also met with a reasonable degree of success such that DNA fingerprinting has now come to represent a major scientific and anti-criminal breakthrough in recent times. DNA tests have also proved conclusive evidence in absolving innocent suspects who were languishing in jail accused on false and misled charges, while, conversely, setting out punishment to actual criminals who were moving scot free due to lack of circumstantial evidence and material witness to substantiate their crimes. However, DNA profiling was used conclusively to solve a criminal case during 1985 which involved a double murder case in Lancashire. DNA tests proved that the man who had confessed was not the actual killer and finally “Within a year, despite an attempt to evade screening, local baker Colin Pitchfork became the first person convicted of murder in Britain using DNA evidence, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.” (Steinhauer, 2010). DNA technology has gained tremendous boost of technological advancement including latest state-of –the art technology for apprehending criminals and murderers, while at the same time, making sure that the innocent suspects need to be exonerated on the basis of solid evidence. Further the use of DNA as a forward crime fighting strategy has also been ratified by the International Police. According to Interpol, “DNA profiles can be stored and searched across international borders using the Interpol Standard Set of Loci (ISSOL).” (DNA profiling, 2010). How the evidence is generally collected and preserved for trial: The evidence is collected and retained in a manner that could truly evidence its identity and integrity and whenever required allow the evidence to be available for testing and retesting procedures. Further, it is necessary that evidence should be properly and securely packed and stored, not necessarily in plastic containers since plastic retain moisture and this could leave scope for contamination of DNA evidence for production in Court. The following aspects need to be clearly informed in the accompanying documents and /or package in which the evidence is stored: 1. Place and location from where the said evidence has been collected 2. Person from whom the evidenced has been collected – date and time of collection, the identity of the person who had collected the said evidence, with designation, and the method in which it was collected 3. it is to be recorded whether the person’s informed consent was obtained before gaining said evidence and no force or coercion was resorted to obtain the said evidence. If it was gained through Order of the Court, this fact also needs to be acknowledged in the documents. Further it is important that best practices and police guidelines are followed in the retention of the said evidence and it needs to be preserved in its state till such time the due judicial processes are complete. Even after these procedures are exhausted, the formal procedures and rules governing destruction of evidence needs to be observed. The legal issues involved in admission of DNA evidence into trial: Perhaps one of the main issues is the ready and absolute admissibility of DNA evidence- since it cannot be accepted as 100% absolute to testify against a suspect. At best, it could narrow down suspects in criminal cases and list probability but in all likelihood it cannot be accepted as most certain evidence. This could be due to a plethora of reasons, the contamination of evidence being one such fact. Due to handling and storage inaccuracies, it is quite possible that DNA evidence could be contaminated which could vitiate its prospects as a genuine piece of evidence in court admission, for both prosecution and defense. Besides laboratory errors and statistical mistakes could also happen that could render incorrect verdicts if applied. “However, some courts have excluded it from evidence because of problems with the possible contamination of samples, questions surrounding the significance of its statistical probabilities, and laboratory errors.” (DNA evidence-legal history of Dna evidence, 2010). However, it is believed that DNA evidence may serve more appropriately as exclusion evidence, viz. exclude a suspect’s incrimination in a crime, since DNA evidence collected at the scene of crime may not match that collected from an innocent suspect, rather than an inclusion or incriminating one, viz. there is sufficient evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, to prove that both the samples do match. Another risk could be in terms of the fact that if the DNA samples of ordinary people are in police database records, the risk of their being fully or partially matched in future crimes or being linked with DNA samples found in present or future crime scenes cannot be disregarded. This could put even innocent people to risk and embarrassment. Often DNA samples could reveal sensitive, private and confidential data like family links, relationships and propensity to diseases, and often researchers who use such database could gain access to DNA of ordinary citizens without their permission or consent. This is often seen as a flagrant violation of privacy and civil liberty rights of citizens in a free country, like the United States of America. Conclusions: While the question of DNA profiling does seen to have earned its own share of bouquets and brickbats, there is enough evidence to prove that, in itself, DNA is indeed a useful collaborator of investigative fact finding and needs to be put at the positive disposal of such agencies who are actively engaged in pursuing the truth behind social and criminal doings. However, more than blame DNA technology, it is necessary to modify and upgrade the use and enforcement of such technology and use it for common good. The technology, like every other one, is only as good (or bad) as its utilization and therefore, it is intrinsic that legislation predicates it and the legal machinery supports and enforces the due and legitimate enforcement of DNA for human safety and welfare and it needs to serve much more than just as an crime solving device. Reference List DNA evidence-legal history of Dna evidence. (2010). Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/6228/DNA-Evidence-Legal-History-DNA-Evidence.html#ixzz0yER7c6Ir DNA profiling. (2010). Interpol. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.interpol.int/public/forensic/dna/default.asp Johnson, P., & Williams, R. (2006). Genetic and forensics: Making the national DNA database. UKPMC Funders Group. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351151/ Steinhauer, J. (2010). ‘Grim sleeper’ arrest fans debate on DNA use. The New York Times. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/us/09sleeper.html Read More