DNA & The Judicial System - Essay Example

DNA in Judicial System The past one decade has seen great improvements in one of the most powerful criminal justice tools ever devised: Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA). The criminal justice tool provides a means by which criminals can be identified with sound accuracy (Fredrich, 2011). Provided the criminal or a suspect leaves biological evidence at the site of the crime, DNA sampling is an effective tool for proving the rightful offenders. In as much as the tool has been effective and helpful in providing evidence to rubber-stamp claims by the prosecution team, the same DNA has been used to exonerate persons and clear suspects mistakenly convicted of committing crimes. In essence, DNA technology provides an all-important framework for delivering fairness with accuracy in the criminal system. Evolution of DNA technology to solve criminal cases is not a new phenomenon. Media has extensively popularized the concept of DNA technology and its role in the fight against crime and injustice. This extensive coverage is not just for the mere reason that the technology is relatively new in the judicial system, but because of its peculiar accuracy in convicting or exonerating suspects. Legislation has been a major issue in the application of DNA technology (James, 2012). These stem from incessant use of the technology in data banking to using DNA tests in post-conviction tests. Originally, the test was developed solely for determining paternity of children. Samples taken under clinical conditions were studied for genetic evidence linking parents to children. The maiden time DNA technology made its way into the judicial system was in 1986. Police in England asked a molecular biologist and researcher, Alec Jeffreys to use DNA tests to verify the validity of 17 year old boy in two cases of sexual assault in the English Midlands. The twist in the test results that proved the boy to be innocent of the offenses, and a later conviction of the real perpetrator using the same DNA test made DNA testing a technology to revere in the judicial system. In 1987, the first DNA-based conviction took place in the United States. Tommy Lee was convicted in Circuit Courts, Florida within the Orange County for rape (The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009). The DNA test on samples of semen collected from a victim matched his DNA construct. This did not, however, change the public and judicial mindset did not take immediate effect until a high court ruled in favor of DNA test. In 1989, the state high court of West Virginia ruled in favor of DNA sample tests on a rape case (Lazer, 2010). The first years of the ground-breaking use of DNA in administering justice did not attract dispute and public uproar. This, however, changed as the technique became more widely used by prosecutors. Defense attorneys began challenging and disputing the admissibility of DNA tests as grounds of administering justice. Admissibility of a new technology in judicial system is determined using two universally agreed standards. These are the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. The first standard of admissibility, Daubert Standard originates from 1993 case of Daubert v Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals. The court ruled during this famous legal tussle that evidence and proof must possess enough scientific reliability and validity to be admitted as relevant scientific knowledge which would be used to assist the trier of facts (Yang, 2011). The earlier standard named Frye Standard is based in a 1923 case of Frye v United States. During this important ruling, the court pronounced that in order for a novel scientific technology to be admissible, scientific evidence must be thoroughly established to have acquired general acceptance in the field that it belongs. Considering the two standards of admissibility of technology, it would be level-minded to conclude that DNA technology meets the criteria of determining admissibility. The technology belongs to the field of medicine and clinical practices (Ze-Lian & Drew, 2008). Prior to its usage in the judicial system in 1986, the technology had been accepted in the field of medicine and genetic as a valuable tool of determining paternity. The technology had been tested ad used to prove parental linkages and has a universal acceptance. This meets the first admissibility criterion using Frye Standard. In addition, there was evidence that DNA tests are consistent and reliable. There is no circumstance that the technology can be used on the same pair of samples to deliver varying results. As such, DNA technology meets the second standard of admissibility of evidence from technological advancements; Daubert Standard. The technology is, therefore admissible and accepted framework for convicting or exonerating suspects. Several challenges have been experienced in admissibility of DNA tests as evidence in court cases, despite the fact that DNA evidence meets the two universally accepted standards of admissibility. One of the most famous of these cases is the case of New York v Castro, a landmark murder case and probably one of the earliest challenges to the admissibility of DNA evidence. There were overwhelming questions over the DNA evidence from blood stains recovered from the defendant’s watch during the pre-trial hearing. The court acknowledged that DNA identification Theory, techniques and practice are generally accepted in the scientific community (Zhu, 2009). Pre-trial hearings were required to determine whether methodology used by the testing laboratory was in line with scientific procedures and standards that could produce reliable evidence for the consideration of the jury. The procedures and methodology used in the laboratory were in question and it failed to prove that the standards were of judicial acceptance and consideration. The court ruled that the blood sample was indeed for Castro, but upheld that the DNA test was for exclusion and not inclusion. In the view of the court, the process of determining a match was more complex than the process of ruling out a match. Successful use of DNA to solve quandaries in the judicial system abound. Among many other instances that DNA technology has helped the justice system solve problems of massive nature, an incident in New York in 1999 stands out. New York authorities linked a man via DNA test evidence to at least 22 robberies and sexual assaults that had raised fears in the city. Later in 2002, authorities in Fort Collins, Colorado and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania used DNA evidence to find a link and associate a series of robberies, rapes and murders to the individual who perpetrated the vices. A year before that, Green River Killings were unearthed using DNA test technology to provide evidence that linked the deaths to the perpetrator. These cases had taken a long time of investigation and massive resources had been dedicated to unraveling the identity of the perpetrators. In particular, the Green River Killings case had been investigated for four years and a total of $15 million dedicated to its investigations (The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2009). Providing evidence from DNA sampling and testing is based on a database of DNA database. The federal government laid a foundation for state, national and DNA database that would aid in sharing of DNA profiles in 1980. The system is known as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) (Yang, 2011). The framework keeps DNA profiles of all citizens obtained under the state, federal and local systems. The set of database is available to all law enforcement agencies across the states for the purposes of maintaining law and order. Combined DNA Index System also has the ability to link DNA samples obtained from varying crime scenes. This helps in identification of serial criminals. Effectiveness of Combined DNA Index System required the government to take drastic measures towards keeping DNA samples of criminals. 1980s and 1990s marked the breakthrough of the system when the federal government managed to institute a law that required all convicted criminals of various cases to provide DNA samples for the national, federal and local security agencies (James, 2012). Presently, a total of 50 states and the federal government have laws instituted and implemented requiring that certain classes of criminals’ DNA be collected and kept in the Combined DNA Index System. Using this system to its full potential has the ability to curtail several criminal activities in the country. However, there are still a number of hitches in Combined DNA Index System that need adjustment. In a number of instances, the public crime laboratories have a backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples. The crime laboratories are either too slow in their analysis or the numbers across the country is too small to contain the increased need to sample DNA from convicts. Available facilities are overwhelmed. Further, the DNA laboratories are ill equipped to handle the increasing DNA influx of evidence and samples (Zhu, 2009). The challenges of backlogs and lack of efficient technologies have led to delayed dispensation of justice. Delayed justice places suspects in state of apprehension and anguish that would be otherwise void and non-existent had the government updated its crime labs. For these reasons, more efficient technologies need to be developed for faster analysis of DNA samples. Whereas it is acknowledgeable that the DNA sampling system used in the country is one of the most efficient DNA sampling technologies in the world today, the government through its research institutions needs to speed the wheels of justice by developing faster analysis systems. Further, professionals that deal with DNA sample analysis in the judicial system need additional training. It is imperative that the professional use the DNA evidence to solve crimes and assist victims. Properly trained professionals would prevent release of criminals on basis of admissibility of methodology used in analyzing DNA samples like it happened in the New York v Castro. Despite the few problems and challenges experienced in administering justice to suspects and victims of crime, the technology remains an essential tool for delivering justice with fairness and precision. The method has helped unravel several crimes in the past, and remains one of the most reliable technologies of ascertaining perpetrators in crimes. Upon correcting the mess observed in Combined DNA Index System and crime labs, the technology will remain one of the most successful frameworks ever to dispense justice. Works Cited Fredrich, Kroech. Principles of Law DNA in The Judicial System: Circumstances for Breaking the Law. Washington DC: Siege Publishers, 2011. James, John. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. New York, 2 June 2012. Lazer, David. DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice. 9 June 2010. 11 Dec 2913 . The Journal of Clinical Investigation. DNA and the criminal justice system The technology of justice. 6 Feb 2009. 111 Dec 2013 . Yang, S Q. Analysis of DNA in The Judicial System. New York: Swindler Publishers, 2011. Ze-Lian, Le and Mark S Drew. "Fundamentals of Multimedia: DNA in The Judicial System." Literature Journal (2008): 90-109. Zhu, A G. Contributions of DNA in The Judicial System to Political Growth of America. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2009. Read More