New Technologies in Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM The world around us is changing rapidly due to new technologies. Especially in the field of criminal justice we can see how new techniques that once could only have been dreamt up by science fiction writers are now a reality. The techniques are now an integral part of efforts to prevent and solve crimes—largely because of their success rate and their level of convenience. This is so very important because our police forces and forensic laboratories play a vital front line effort in investigating and protecting us from criminals. In many respects, law enforcement professionals can only protect the public in so far as they can properly and effectively make use of new technologies. However, because these advances are still so new it is not always possible to understand their full implication. Do they have unintended consequences? Are they really as useful as they appear? And perhaps more importantly will we become so reliant on this technology that we throw away good old sleuthing techniques and human controls and simply let technology take over? These are all incredibly important questions that we must think carefully about. This essay will examine some of these questions by looking at the pros and cons of specific technological advances. In the criminal justice system there are two opposing modes of looking of how to deal with criminals. The first is the due process model. The gist of this model is that an individual can never be deprived of basic human rights no matter how horrible a crime he or she has committed. Even to put someone in prison is to take away the criminal’s inalienable right to liberty and there must be many appeals and a thoroughly scrutinized process to ensure that everything is done by the book. At its heart the due process model would rather see nine guilty people on the street than one innocent person in prison. The end result of this mode requires many hours of painstaking work by humans checking and rechecking evidence and the court case moving very slowly through the system. The second mode of looking at criminal justice is the Criminal Control Mode. This system puts a high value on locking up guilty people. It focuses on protecting citizens from criminals as quickly as possible. Under this system more money is spent on policing and deterring and prosecuting criminals as quickly as possible so that the police and prosecutors can move on quickly to the next batch. If an innocent person is caught in the net, that is a tragedy, but what is important is that many bad guys got caught too. For the most part, however, the Crime Control Mode believes that the police are almost always right and there is probably a very good reason someone was arrested by them. When examining new technologies in the fight against crime it is important to keep both of these modes in mind. The key is to strike a middle ground between the two. Criminals do have rights but if we allow them the right to not provide DNA samples, we may be unable to charge them with additional crimes the sample might prove they committed. If we compel people who are simply suspects in a crime to give biological samples, we may be treading on constitutional rights. Always it is important to find a happy medium. One of the most radical transformations in evidence collection in recent years in the criminal justice system is the use of DNA. Considered by some to be a silver bullet, conclusively proving guilt, DNA’s significance can be hard to defend against and may create an insurmountable burden for an innocent defendant. It is documented that there is a high level of error in laboratories, and it is possible for DNA samples to be switched. An accident like this combined with circumstantial evidence would almost certainly result in a guilty verdict. Likewise, sophisticated criminals have been known to plant false DNA evidence at the crime scene in order to shift attention away from themselves and away from others. A case of this happening is Dr. John Schneeberger who implanted into his armpit a Penrose drain and provided someone else’s DNA when asked by the technicians, thereby avoiding being convicted of the original crime of rape (he was originally charged). An over reliance on DNA, although tempting, is certainly unappealing from the Due Process Model perspective. However, people who prefer the Crime Control Mode of criminal justice view DNA testing as a godsend as it frequently puts the bad guys away. DNA profiling starts with taking an individuals DNA. The best method of collecting a sample is through a “buccal swab.” Sometimes this requires a court order and police can’t get it. In these cases, other methods can be used including taking samples of blood, saliva, semen, or other fluid or tissue from personal items (for example, toothbrush, razor, etc) or stored samples. Sometimes, samples taken from blood relatives may be used to catch bad guys. There is a lot of controversy about this issue and whether or not it is appropriate to collect peoples’ DNA samples without a warrant or without telling them that you are doing it.1 Sometimes police forces collect samples without the suspects knowledge, and use it as evidence. In the United States, it has been accepted, courts often claiming that there was no expectation of privacy to taking someone’s biological data. There are lawyers who believe the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage so why should it prohibit collecting a tissue with someone’s DNA on it if they left it behind? Critics of this idea say the fact that this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by, for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one’s DNA in public."2 The UK has a different view of things: the Human Tissue Act of 2004 prohibits private individuals from secretly collecting biological samples for DNA analysis, but excludes medical and criminal investigations from the offence. So it is clear that different countries have different ways of looking at this complicated and controversial issue. Generally, this is a very useful technology, but it must be used carefully and scrutinized, not just done automatically. A related new technology is DNA databases. These are collections of government database that can be used by law enforcement agencies to find suspects. The world’s first such database was established by the United Kingdom in April 1995. In the US, the FBI has organized the CODIS database. The British have one of the most advanced and rigorously used databases. Anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime must submit a DNA sample, which is than permanently saved in the database. Even if you didn’t commit the crime or were acquitted, the government will keep your DNA sample. Other countries fall on different parts of this spectrum, more lenient or less lenient. Portugal is somewhat extreme as they have plans to introduce a DNA database of its entire population!3 The arguments on both sides can be powerful. In December 2008, “the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, said ‘blanket and indiscriminate’ lifetime retention of DNA samples from people suspected but not convicted of offences ‘failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests.’”4 Civil liberties groups in the UK were very happy with this news. They believe that a person’s right to privacy is violated when a government essentially confiscates their biological data. To them it is not worth it that more criminals might be caught using this method—the cost in personal privacy and dignity is just too high. But there are powerful proponents of the idea too. Last year a high profile British judge set off a lot of controversy when he said everyone in the UK should be forced to provide a DNA sample to the government for law enforcement purposes. In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Lord Justice Stephen Sedley said the current database of nearly four million samples — currently the worlds largest — is insufficient, and that ethnic minorities are disproportionately included. "We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you havent, it isnt. … Thats broadly the picture," Sedley said. "It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free."5 The reason why the debate is so emotional is that both sides have good arguments that show the place where security and freedom have to intersect. These arguments happen again and again each time a new technology comes along. Balance is key. It is not a good idea to expand these databases endlessly, but they certainly have a very important role to play. Another important new breakthrough that may be used more and more in the future and which is proving quite controversial is biometrics. There are effectively two type of biometrics: physiological—e.g. fingerprints, iris scans—and behavioural—e.g. voice or signature. Fingerprint detection of course has been around for a long time, but these days fingerprints can be reproduced and digitally stored. On the one hand this makes it a lot easier to solve crimes and find out information quickly—and so it makes Crime Control people happy. However, the process is now potential more open to abuse than ever before. One of the biggest concerns is that once a biometric source has been compromised, it is compromised for life. A person can’t just change their fingerprints. It might be possible for criminals to steal someone’s biometrical identity and plant it at the scene of a crime. Like DNA, this data is considered by laypeople (for example jurors) to be almost fool proof and if provided as evidence in court would create a high presumption of guilt. That would be a big problem. It would also be problem for those who want identity cards to contain a piece of biometric data—this took could be fraudulently put together. Many of these technologies create an illusion of perfection, which is not true in reality. Fingerprints are not the only aspect of biometrics that have been significant to law enforcement. It can also be used to analyze and recognize facial features in order to find criminals. Faces seen on CCTV cameras can be cross referenced with faces in databases. This can certainly be used to find bad guys, but it might be possible to have plastic surgery to avoid being detected. This is a new technology that may one day allow the government to keep tabs on all of us, say Due Process people critically. Generally, I think this is a very useful technology which we should use more of. Balance is important but we should definitely pursue the idea and make more use of it. Part of its increased use will be increased dialogue, and that is a good thing, but just to stop it right now would be ridiculous. The United States, rocked by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, has been one of the world leaders in implementing this sort of technology both to protect its citizens and also to hunt down criminals. Beginning in 2005, American passports with facial (image-based) biometric data began to be produced. Again, Due Process people were critical of the technologys negative side: its threat to civil liberties, privacy, and the risk of identity theft. They are concerned that the information can be stolen and used to identify peoples citizenship remotely for criminal intentions. At any rate, the biometric passports have been delayed as the technology has not yet been perfected. Some of the problems include compatibility of reading devices, information formatting, and nature of content (for example, the United States wants to use only image data, whereas the EU wants to use fingerprint and image data). The world is changing every day. With new technology our lives often become more convenient, but also Pandora’s boxes of arguments and controversies occur as we try to rebalance our lives after they are altered by new inventions. So it is with law enforcement and technologies like DNA profiling, DNA databases, and biometrics. All of these things are in their infancy and all are subject to emotional and highly charged debate. Do they make it easier to capture criminals or are they slowly eroding our lives? Everyone has different opinions on such questions. What is important to remember is that no matter what side you agree with, society as a whole must come to a balance and we must constantly reexamine the foundations upon which our democracies were built: both security AND freedom. Works cited Maria Boivida. “Portugal Plans a Forensic DNA Database.” Newropeans Magazine. April 8, 2006. http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2059&Itemid=121 Amy Harmon. “Lawyers fight DNA samples gained on the sly.” New York Times. April 3, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html?_r=1 Stuart Jeffries. “Suspect Nation.” Guardian. October 28, 206. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/28/comment.ukcrime “Put all British citizens, visitors in DNA database: judge.” CBC News Online. September 5, 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/05/dna-britain.html “Human Rights Court Says DNA Database Violates Rights.” CBC News online. December 5, 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/05/dna-database.html Read More