Pros And Cons Of Dna Database

DNA Database in Forensic

DNA profiles have become increasingly crucial in criminology, especially in tracing suspects at crime scenes and clearing the innocence. Authorities worldwide are investing millions of dollars in interlinked DNA database storage on local, state, and national basis. While many police officials, including former NYC police commissioner Howard Safir, advocated expanding the criminal DNA database to more efficiently scrutinize criminal evidence (Kifner), others, such as former attorney general Janet Reno, are against the technology that might invade people’s private life (Dwyer). Although everything has its pros and cons, the benefits of employing DNA database in investigating criminals outweigh the downsides based on

In other words, fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces and can easily be worn out. Thus, the culprit can avoid leaving behind traces by wearing gloves. On the other hand, with only a small amount of physical waste like a droplet of blood, a fragment of the hair, a patch of skin or any evidence that contain genetic information, DNA database technology can quickly reveal the suspect’s identity. According to the research report “The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes,” which was funded by the National Institute of Justice and submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, it is concluded that “DNA [evidence] is at least five times as likely to result in a suspect identification compared with fingerprints”, and that “Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database [can work at] twice the rate of AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System)—16 percent and 8 percent respectively (Roman et al. 3-4). These figures imply that DNA evidence is remarkably more effective than conventional methods in collecting, analyzing, and identifying suspects. As a result, DNA evidence analysis will bring out significant improvements for local, state, and federal law enforcement

Although this is true, the likelihood of fingerprints being touched by many people besides from the criminal himself or herself is equally high. Therefore, biological evidence solely identifies a pool of suspects, from which further methods are used to find the offender. Moreover, it is apparently easier for them to unintentionally leave behind some of their DNA-containing traces than fingerprints. For instances, a sudden sneeze or an accidental injury leave sufficient evidence for investigators to collect. Therefore, although the criminal can try to fake evidence, he or she is only capable of widening the suspect range and not of eliminating himself or herself from being one. This is not to mention the contributions DNA evidence has made in proving the innocent, especially in sexual assault cases. In fact, according to the “Case Studies in Use of DNA Evidence” research report, published in June 1996 by the National Institute of Justice, “Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing" (Connors). This interpretation challenges the work of those critics who have long assumed that DNA evidence can easily lead to a false accusation and simultaneously proves its power