The Department of Justice says, "States began passing laws requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples. " That DNA evidence can help convict someone of a crime and it helps to uncover more things about the crime itself. Investigators have been using forensic science to help them solve cases since before the 90 's, mostly fingerprints that were found at the crime scenes and on the victims (O 'Brien). DNA evidence has solved countless cases including ones that happened over a prolonged period of time because of the technological advancements there is
In 1984, Kirk Bloodsworth was accused of raping and murdering nine-year-old Dawn Hamilton. Two young boys were fishing in a small pond behind the apartment that Dawn had lived at and witnessed her walk into the wood with a man described as 6-foot five, with a bushy mustache and blonde hair. Hours later, Dawn was found face down in the woods by a Baltimore detective. At the time Bloodsworth did not live in the area. He was a 6 feet, redhead who wore glasses.
It is a great technological innovation that can help bring evidences and fact faster. In the article The DNA Wars Are Over, “Forensic use of DNA technology in criminal cases began in 1986… In one of the first uses of DNA in a criminal case in the United States, in November 1987.” Sadly in 1985, DNA testing was not popular in the U.S. investigation and was not available in Cole’s case. I believe the U.S. court system is improving and yes there are a lot mistrials and wrongful conviction cases, but you cannot avoid the fact that DNA testing can bring better truth than just relying on statements of both
It can refute a claim of self-defense and put a weapon in the suspect's hand. It can change a story from an alibi to one of consent. The more officers know how to use DNA, the more powerful a tool it becomes.” This proves that DNA evidence is very reliable and is hard evidence that cannot be argued upon. DNA is either found at the scene of the crime or isn’t.
DNA has given some innocents their freedom, but others are still being locked up. Jurors are giving guilty verdicts to people who don’t deserve it based on theories and confessions that may have been beaten out of them. It was reported in the studies that exculpatory DNA does sometimes help a defendant that had confessed, but then prosecutors come up with theories and that doesn’t help the defendants, as was the case of Joseph Buffey (Appleby & Kassin, 2016). I didn’t expect for exculpatory DNA not to be taken into consideration when prosecutors told a theory that can explain why DNA of the accused was not at the scene of the crime. It just doesn’t make sense.
We know that DNA testing is giving hope to the hopeless in prison. Margret Berger (2006) comments, “Even though the number of inmates released as a consequence of DNA testing is minuscule in contrast to the two million persons incarcerated in the United States, the DNA exonerations have had an enormous impact on the fundamental assumptions about the American criminal justice system and how it operates.” Changes like the desirability of the death penalty, the growing concerns on how forensic laboratories operate alongside the increasing interest in forensic science overall. For instance, as the number of exonerations continues to rise, the number of people being placed on death row is decreasing thanks to Supreme Court rulings that juveniles under the age of 18 and the mentally ill cannot be sentenced to death. The death penalty is overall losing its appeal to society, not just because of the DNA testing, but people become aware of the wrongful convictions of other crimes as well.
The impact of Tim’s case was also felt on a national and even international level, as it shed light on the importance of using accurate and scientific evidence in the legal system and the need to reform the criminal justice system to prevent wrongful convictions. Tim’s story has inspired many other cases to be re-opened and re-examined, leading to the exoneration of several other innocent individuals. Overall, the case of Tim Cole has had a profound impact on the criminal justice system and has helped to bring about important changes in the use of DNA
In the book picking cotton a young woman’s life was haunted by a terrible crime while a young man’s life was ruined by false accusations and evidence. This book is one which many can relate to, due to the fact that that we live in a society where crime as such happens everyday and situations such as lack of evidence and false accusations put people in jail for crimes they did not commit. In our genetics class we learn a lot about how DNA plays an important role in our lives. The book makes me take this way more seriously than I did when talking about it in class because it shows how a simple sample of DNA can rid someone of a lifetime in prison for a crime they did not commit. Ronald Cotton was accused of a crime he did not commit, after 10
I feel that DNA is the only reliable forensic tool because its principles are example of real science. Mentioned in the video, forensic science was developed by law enforcement, but DNA analysis was developed by medical science. A much more reliable source. There may be certain situations where DNA isn’t the best tool to go off of. Like for example if there isn’t an enough quantity of it at the scene of a crime or if it has been mixed with someone else’s (Kaye and Sensabaugh, 2000).
However, other people may be believe that the American Criminal Justice System is trustworthy and fair to all individuals. Thus, they believe innocents should have nothing to fear based on the assumption that the Criminal Justice System is never mistaken. Given the advanced technology used in courtrooms today, people think that this can always be depended on for accurate results. For instance, in modern courtrooms, prosecutors and attorneys use “undeniable scientific evidence” such as DNA testing and fingerprint evidence (Volokh). Therefore, some people think that it is virtually impossible for an innocent person to be convicted for a crime with this irrefutable technology.
In King, Justice Kennedy referred to the invention of DNA technology as “one of the most significant scientific advancements of our era.” This statement has been criticized, but the impact of DNA technology has been significant. Currently, forensic analysts can use “junk” DNA to identify a person with near certainty. Law enforcement can collect a person’s DNA through saliva. The sample is then uploaded to CODIS, a national network of DNA databases.
As Loftus explains, we are so willing to accept unreliable eyewitness accounts because we do not understand how memory actually works. Most people believe the "video camera" scenario instead of the "evolutionary" scenario. Because of this misconception we are very strongly inclined to believe eyewitness accounts. “Why is eyewitness testimony so powerful and convincing? Because people in general and jurors in particular believe that our memories stamp the facts of our experiences on a permanent, non-erasable tape, like a computer disk or videotape that is write-protected,” (p. 21).
Blurred Vision: The Fallibility of Eyewitness Testimony On an early, foggy morning in April 1981, a Dallas, Texas woman awoke to find a man with a knife on top of her in her bed. After trying to get the knife from her attacker, she was cut on her hand, neck, and back, and then raped before the attacker fled the scene. According to the Innocence Project, in the report “Reevaluating Lineups: Why Witnesses Make Mistakes and How to Reduce the Chance of a Misidentification,” the victim originally told the police she could not describe her assailant because at the time of the attack, 45 minutes before sunrise, the room was too dark (7).
Are You Sure? Why have more than two-thousand people exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit? Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. Memory can be influenced by anxiety, stress, reconstructive memory and other factors possibly affecting the testimony of the eyewitness and in turn, misleading the jury. I think that when subjects witness a crime they will struggle to remember important details of the event, and their recollection could be easily altered. This is because the reconstructive memory can be influenced by factors such as stress, anxiety, and verbal cues.
Eyewitness identification is ineffective and unjust. Studies have shown that 40% of eyewitness identifications are wrong (Vrij, 1998). Eyewitness identification has great importance in the legal system. This requires the best eyewitness testimony procedure. This essay examines the three main types of eyewitness line-ups; the showup, the sequential and the simultaneous line-up.
