Pros and Cons of Using Dna

Dominique Jones

no teacher

no date

whatever

Pros and Cons of Using DNA

Throughout the history of our justice system, many strategies have been developed and brought to light in the attempt to solve crimes. Traditional techniques include fingerprints and witnesses. Other more contemporary techniques are scientific in nature, using forensics to examine physical evidence unnoticeable to the naked eye. Advances in technology, mainly DNA testing, have provided a platform whereby which investigators can solve even the most violent of crimes. This technology may seem like a viable resolve for solving rape and murder cases, yet much controversy exists on the topic because of legal concerns, cost effectiveness, and reliability issues.

Critics of this technology assert that the tests are not only expensive, but violate the civil liberties of innocent bystanders who might be family to someone put in CODIS, the Combined DNA Index System. Being the largest of its kind, CODIS contains literally millions of profiles with millions being added each year as over 40 states have laws requiring convicted felons to submit DNA samples. In the article "The DNA Factor, Sarah Hammond says, "Forty-seven states have laws to collect DNA samples for all convicted felons" ("DNA Factor"). Critics claim that with the economy in such poor shape spending on something as controversial as DNA testing, and furthermore making it mandatory, is on some level ignorant. On the other hand, proponents testify that it is financially beneficial to conduct such tests, claiming, "We need our law enforcement back on the street fighting crime and carrying on their own investigations...let DNA take care of part of that workload" (Hammond). Yet those that are not in favor of the idea claim that our justice system has functioned without DNA testing in the past and that there are other effective measures.

Similarly, proponents claim that such technology cannot only help solve cases that arise daily, but also cold cases, and even exonerating those who have been falsely convicted and imprisoned. As stated in a Newsweek article, "almost eighty percent of the wrongly accused were first fingered by an alleged eyewitness" (Dokoupil). Challenges have been made in the Supreme Court on such foundations to no avail. This may be because justices of the Supreme Court feel that the lineup is a very useful tool to police and should be used more effectively.

Meanwhile, those who support the use of DNA in criminal investigations do for the simple reason that it is more absolute than other types of evidence. For example, police were unable to catch the Green River killer for more than twenty years, and finally in 2003, Gary Ridgeway was apprehended exclusively because of DNA testing. Though the murders started in 1982, samples of DNA from the victims were preserved and stored for possible future tests. This brings another controversy into play as it creates the possibility of contamination. The integrity of DNA evidence depends greatly on how it is collected, preserved, and stored. If exposed to the elements such as, heat, cold, moisture, etc., admissibility in the court of law can be severely compromised due to deterioration in the quality of the evidence. If either side can prove the evidence has been tainted in the slightest way, a motion to dismiss will inevitably ensue. The reliability of the DNA test was questioned in the NCSL's The DNA Factor just last month, "DNA analysis is regarded as the "gold standard" of forensic science because research for its techniques have been thoroughly tested and heavily financed. The procedures, however, still are vulnerable to human error" (Hammond). Be this as it may, those in favor still contend that this technology is invaluable to criminal investigations because when the samples are correct, there is nothing more accurate. Nevertheless, critics still believe that privacy issues exist and press for legislation nationwide to protect those who may fall prey to such a monstrous system. On the other hand, proponents argue, "a DNA sample is no more invasive to one's privacy than a simple fingerprint" (Jones).

The fact remains, our justice system continues to prosecute and imprison innocent