Informative Essay I: DNA Testing

Research Essay I: DNA Testing

“In criminal investigation, DNA evidence can be a game changer” (Elster, 2017). Chemist Friedrich Miescher recognized DNA in the 1860s, but in 1953 James Watson and Francis Crick identified more specific details, such as the three-dimensional double helix, that exist within one’s DNA (The History of DNA, 2019). When it comes to solving a crime, DNA evidence can be used to connect criminals with remarkable accuracy (Using DNA to solve crimes, 2017). The first time DNA was implemented in a criminal case was in 1986 (The History of DNA, 2019). Since then, DNA has been used to solve current criminal cases, as well as unsolved cold cases. While there are limits to what DNA can prove, it can help investigators identify

One type of evidence they collect is biological evidence such as DNA. The use of analyzing the DNA evidence found at a crime scene helps investigators begin to identify the culprit. When looking at a crime scene, investigators take photographs and measurements, as well as identify and collect forensic evidence such as DNA. If a suspect is linked to a crime by investigators, the suspect’s DNA can be analyzed to see if it matches the DNA found at the crime scene (Maryville University, 2021). As well as this, if a suspect has not been identified, biological evidence collected can be compared to previous offender’s DNA in databases to see if they are associated with the crime (Using DNA to solve crimes, 2017). For example, if a man was convicted of sexual assault and provided his DNA at the time he was convicted, he could be connected to future crimes he commits because his DNA is already in the database (Using DNA to solve crimes, 2017). The analyzation of DNA evidence in criminal investigation has helped to solve and prevent some of the nation’s most serious and violent crimes (Using DNA to solve crimes,

For example, DNA collected from a crime scene could have been deposited before or after the commencement of a crime (Elster, 2017). Additionally, DNA can be transferred from one person to another. So, if a person’s DNA was transferred to the criminal before they committed the crime, the innocent’s biological evidence could be present as well (Elster, 2017). As a result, there is a possibility that a guilty criminal could be set free even though they actually committed the crime. This is why biological evidence should be used with care and must not solely be relied on (Elster, 2017). In addition to this, biological evidence can be partial, which is a weakness when clearing suspects. “At times, DNA evidence has been misused or misunderstood, leading to miscarriages of justice” (Elster, 2017). When analyzing a partial DNA sample, there is a chance of it connecting an innocent person. For example, in 2011, Adam Scott’s DNA was linked to a sperm sample taken from a Manchester rape victim (Elster, 2017). Adam had never visited Manchester and was not convicted because non-DNA evidence relieved him (Elster, 2017). As it turns out, his DNA was only a match because the lab mistakenly reused the plate with Adam’s DNA from a minor accident for the rape case (Elster, 2017). When mistakes like this happen there is a chance a guilty person could be eliminated from the suspect list. Still, if