DNA Typing in the Criminal Justice Field - Research Paper Example

 Historical Perspective of DNA Typing in the Criminal Justice Field Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Name Date Introduction The criminal justice system involves agencies and processes that work to control crime and impose sanctions and penalties upon individuals who violate the law. Over the years, criminal justice system has been facing serious challenges that have considerably compromised the achievement of its objective of maintaining law and order (Fradella, 2011). The challenges have been attributed to a number of factors including technological advancements that have made criminals employ more sophisticated techniques in committing crime and failure by the criminal justice system to embrace new means to curb the emerging challenges in the system (Houck, 2007). Nonetheless, criminal justice system in many jurisdictions has been trying to adopt new strategies that can help it to address new security, law and order challenges. DNA typing is one of the strategies that criminal justice system has embraced in an attempt to achieve its main objective of controlling crime (Butler & Butler, 2010). DNA typing refers to the procedure where DNA extracted from biological sample(s) obtained from a particular individual is analyzed. The DNA extracted is processed in order to generate a pattern for specific person that is known in general term as “DNA profile.” DNA profile is usually unique for each person except from cases of identical twins (Vinayak et al., 2012). In order to have a better understanding of the concept of DNA typing, this paper will discuss the historical perspective of DNA typing, particularly within the criminal justice field. Discovery of “DNA fingerprinting” by Dr. Alec Jeffreys Since DNA typing was invented, it has proved to be the most scientifically valid procedure in forensic science for human identification. It has been immensely implemented in crime labs across the world and has been popular in the media (Frith, 2007). The popularity of this DNA typing is evidenced by the fact that it is one of the forensic procedures that has become somewhat a cultural icon in the sense that it signifies scientific certainty in criminal justice field, and particularly in the law enforcement component of the criminal justice system (Butler, 2012). It is against this background that it is worth investigating the history of DNA typing. Dr. Alec Jeffreys first discovered DNA typing in September 1984. Jeffreys was a geneticist at the University of Leicester at the time of the discovery (Wall, 2005). He made the discovery while studying hereditary diseases in families where he was focusing on methods of resolving immigration and paternity disputes through demonstration of genetic links between individuals (Fisher et al., 2009). It is during this study that he realized that presence of Variable Number of Tandem Repeats (VNTRs) in human beings could be used in establishing a person’s identity. He named this technique DNA typing or DNA fingerprinting (Goodwin et al., 2007). Through this technique, Dr. Jeffreys illustrated that a genetic fingerprint is unique and specific to each individual. In addition, he established that the genetic fingerprint pattern does not belong to another individual on earth apart from cases of identical twins (McCartney, 2006). Upon the discovery made by Dr. Jeffreys, DNA typing technique was first used by immigration officers to confirm whether the prospective immigrants were indeed related to the persons they claimed to relate to in their country of interest. The application of the technique in criminal justice field began in 1986 and has since then played a very fundamental role in the field (Butler & Butler, 2010). First Murder Conviction Utilizing DNA (Leicestershire Murders - suspect Colin Pitchfork) Dr. Jeffreys’ discovery was catapulted into the world of forensic science not so long after making the discovery. DNA typing was used in the investigation of two murders that were committed near the University of Leicester. It was used for the first time to exonerate a suspect and it helped in the conviction of guilty person (Butler, 2012). Two crimes were committed in three years’ span in Leicestershire and were put in forensic map due to their shocking nature. Firstly, 15-year-old Lynda Mann was found raped and murdered in 1983 in Narborough village in Leicestershire and three years later a similar crime was reported involving the rape and murder of another 15-year-old girl by the name Dawn Ashworth (Houck, 2007). With the use of DNA technology, Dr. Jeffreys was requested to compare sample from the murders against a blood sample of Richard Buckland, who was a 17-year-old suspect. The suspect was in police custody and had confessed to the second crime but not the first one. However, some detectives raised suspicion as Buckland had to be 14 years old when he committed the first crime in 1983 (Shoester, 2006). Examination by Dr. Jeffreys actually proved that the DNA fingerprint from the semen samples collected from the two murdered victims were not similar to those of Buckland. The use of DNA technology also proved that the semen samples were from the killer who was responsible for both crimes (Fradella, 2011). The use of DNA typing technology by Dr. Jeffreys provided useful leads to law enforcement officers regarding the crimes. Based on that information, the officers then undertook unprecedented task of catching the killer. The first effort towards achieving this objective was collecting blood sample from men in three towns. Four thousand, five hundred and eighty two men were tested for the blood type of the killer (type A) and enzyme PGM +1 that had been retrieved from the killer’s semen (Fisher et al., 2009). Ten percent of those tested had similar blood type and enzyme as that of the killer. As a result, their blood samples were subsequently tested using Jeffreys’ DNA typing technique. Colin Pitchfork, the man who was later identified as the killer avoided his blood being tested. However, this attempt failed as it was discovered months later that he had avoided having his blood tested (McCartney, 2006). Pitchfork was arrested and when Dr Jeffreys compared his DNA with the DNA found on the two victims, they matched perfectly. Due to this discovery, Pitchfork pled guilty to both rapes and murders instead of going to trial. He was handed a life sentence for both rapes and murders. He thus became the world’s first person to be identified, captured, and prosecuted successfully using DNA typing technique (Goodwin et al., 2007). First U.S. Criminal Court Case Utilizing DNA (Florida v. Tommy Lee Andrews) Since the advent of DNA typing in 1985, it has emerged as one of the most reliable physical evidence at a scene of crime especially those involving sexual offences. This technique has proved to be very effective in determining if distinctive patterns found in certain genetic material at a scene of crime matches the DNA in a potential or suspected perpetrator (Varsha, 2006). The reliability of this technique in ascertaining these patterns during investigation has proved to have an accuracy of over 99 percent. The technique has been found to satisfy well-established standards for admissibility of new scientific evidence (Butler & Butler, 2010). Due to the fact that DNA analysis was broadly accepted in medical applications, courts have decided that DNA typing satisfies the Frye rule - the common standard for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. As a result, DNA testing findings are used in court when the incorporation of the technique is found to be necessary (Houck, 2007). Florida v Tommie Lee Andrews (1987) was the very first case to use DNA testing evidence in the United States. Andrews (the defendant) was caught snooping outside a home of a woman and was captured as a suspect for several rapes incidents that had occurred in the neighborhood (Williams, 2007). Since the prosecutor wanted to build a stronger case against the suspect, he approached a colleague who had information regarding the use of DNA typing in capturing and prosecuting criminals in England (Fradella, 2011). The prosecutor, therefore, decided to contact the company that was involved in DNA typing and used DNA profiling for his case. After testing was done, the results indicated that Andrews was a match for two out of the six rapes that had occurred in the neighborhood (Goodwin et al., 2007). That notwithstanding, it should be noted that since DNA typing was still a novel technique in the US and indeed in the world, it had to go through an admissibility hearing before it was relied upon for in the case (Fisher et al., 2009). DNA Processes DNA typing involves several processes that are important in analyzing the DNA of an individual against the collected samples in order to facilitate investigation process. The process starts with collecting a DNA sample from an individual through blood, semen, saliva or any other fluid or tissue that is appropriate (Shoester, 2006). Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) is the very first process of DNA typing. During this process, DNA already isolated from a sample is cut into short sections by a particular enzyme known as a restriction endonuclease (Wall, 2005). The cutting of the DNA at a specific sequence of bases results in DNA fragments of different sizes. This process is informed by the fact that different people will have DNA fragments of different lengths because of differences in the repeating units’ numbers at a specific DNA locus (Butler, 2012). The next process after RFLP is Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). The first step of this process is isolation of DNA from a tissue sample such as semen, saliva, or blood. The template or isolated DNA is then mixed with a heat-stable type of DNA polymerase such as DNA primers, and deoxynucleotide triphosphates (Frith, 2007). This process also involves denaturation of DNA into separate individual strands. The process allows for the generation of two new copies of the DNA sequence of interest. It has been instrumental in allowing for discrimination and the ability to recover information from small starting samples. Short Tandem Repeats (STR) follows PCR process (McCartney, 2006). STR uses highly polymorphic regions with short repeated DNA sequences. This process is based on the fact that unrelated persons certainly have different repeat units’ numbers and, therefore, it can discriminate individuals who are unrelated. The ultimate power of this process is in its statistical power in the discrimination process (Houck, 2007). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is the other process of DNA typing. Since in some highly degraded samples it can sometimes be difficult or impossible to get a full 13 CODIS STRs profile, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is typed due to the fact that there are many copies of mtDNA in any given cell (Goodwin et al., 2007). While using this process, forensic scientists tend to amplify the HV2 and HV1 regions of the mtDNA then sequence every region and make a comparison with single-nucleotide differences to a particular reference (Butler, 2012). It is important to note that mtDNA is maternally inherited and is therefore directly linked maternal relatives can be used as references to match. A difference of more than two nucleotides is considered as exclusion. The process of analyzing mtDNA is important in determining distinct and clear identities like those of missing individuals when a maternally linked person can be found (Fradella, 2011). The most notable instance where this process was used was in determining whether Anna Anderson was the princess as she had claimed to be. By using this process it was determined that she was not a Russian princess - Anastasia Romanov - that she had claimed to be. The other process used in DNA typing is Y-chromosome (Y-STR) analysis. Modern innovations have allowed for creation of primers that target polymorphic regions on the Y-STR. This allows for resolution of mixed DNA sample from a female and male and in cases where differential extraction is impossible (Varsha, 2006). Unlike mtDNA, which are maternally inherited, Y-STR is paternally inherited and can therefore aid in the identification of males that are paternally related. This process was used in determining whether Thomas Jefferson had sired a son with a slave of his in what is popularly known as Sally Hemings’ controversy (Butler and Butler, 2010). The development and use of the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a generic term that is used in describing the program by FBI of supporting criminal justice system DNA databases and the software that are used in running these databases (Houck, 2007). One part of the CODIS is the National DNA Index System (NDIS) that contains DNA profiles contributed by local, state, and federal participating forensic libraries. The development of FBI’s CODIS can be traced to the late 1980s; it is considered as a product of the Technical Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods (TWGDAM), which had established guidelines for practice standards in the Canadian and United States crime laboratories in the late 1980s when the DNA testing began (Fisher et al., 2009). The FBI laboratory sponsored TWGDAM with the aim of accelerating development of peer-reviewed papers and laboratory guidelines to support DNA testing which was still considered by some as a forensic tool that was still unproven (Wall, 2005). The findings by TWGDAM in October 1989 are what provided operational and conceptual ideas for CODIS to share DNA profiles between crime laboratories. FBI was authorized to operate CODIS through a DNA identification Act of 1994 that set national standards for forensic DNA testing in the United States. However, it should be noted that while the DNA Identification Act was enacted in 1994, CODIS became operational in 1998 (Frith, 2007). CODIS are primarily used in criminal investigations and prosecution. It is used in identifying the suspects and in capturing them. In addition, the law enforcement agencies use this system to share information obtained regarding a particular case with each other to develop possible leads (Butler, 2012). Current DNA Issues i) Familial DNA Familial DNA has been instrumental in the criminal justice field in the recent years. Familial DNA is also known as familial DNA searching – it is a process that involves additional search of DNA database of a law enforcement agency after an initial or routine search has been completed without identifying profile matches in the process (Williams, 2007). Familial DNA, unlike a routine database search that may spontaneously provide partial match profiles, is a deliberate search of DNA database that is done with the sole purpose of possibly identifying close biological relatives to the forensic profile obtained from scene of crime evidence. It is based on the first-order relatives’ concept such as parent/child relationships (Vinayak et al., 2012). ii) Artificial DNA (Israeli Dr. Daniel Frumkin) In 2009, serious doubts were raised regarding the use of DNA by law enforcement agencies as the definitive identification method. Israel scientists at Nucleix Ltd, led by Dr. Daniel Frumkin, raised these doubts. They demonstrated that DNA could be manufactured in a laboratory thereby falsifying DNA evidence (Butler, 2012). They were able to fabricate blood and saliva samples that were originally containing DNA from a person other than the one who was the supposed donor of the samples. In addition, they illustrated that it was possible to take information from a DNA profile using DNA database and manufacture DNA that can match the same without necessarily accessing any actual DNA of the person in question. That notwithstanding, Dr. Frumkin developed a test that can differentiate the real and authentic DNA from the fake ones (Fradella, 2011). Conclusion From this discussion, it is evidently clear that the use of DNA typing has gained prominence in the field of criminal justice since it was discovered in 1985. DNA typing provides the procedure where DNA extracted from biological sample(s) obtained from a particular individual is analyzed. It has been instrumental in investigation of serious rape and murder cases. Its use was instrumental in the conviction of suspect Colin Pitchfork in a case that the real perpetrator would otherwise never have been identified let alone being convicted. In addition, as has been noted, the process has been utilized in criminal court cases, the most notable one being Florida vs. Tommy Lee Andrews. DNA typing has various processes that help in obtaining the desired results. Familial DNA and Artificial DNA are some of the current DNA typing issues that have significantly contributed to the concept and its use in the criminal justice system. References Butler, J. M., & Butler, J. M. (2010). Fundamentals of forensic DNA typing. Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier. Butler, J. M. (2012). Advanced topics in forensic DNA typing: Methodology. Walthan, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. Fisher, B et al. (2009). Introduction to criminalistics: The foundation of forensic science. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press. Fradella, H. F. (2011). Editor’s Introduction: Forensic Science and Criminal Justice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(2), 128-132. Frith, A. (2007). Forensic science. Tulsa, OK: EDC. Goodwin, W et al. (2007). An introduction to forensic genetics. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Houck, M. M. (2007). Forensic science: Modern methods of solving crime. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers. McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic identification in the criminal justice system. Cullompton: Willan. Shoester, M. V. (2006). Forensics in law enforcement. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Williams, D. (2007). Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 9(2), 193-197 Varsha. (2006). DNA Fingerprinting in the Criminal Justice System: An Overview. DNA & Cell Biology, 25(3): 181-188. Vinayak, V. et al. (2012). Forensic Trichology and its Importance in Crime Cases. Nature & Science, 10(9), 116-120. Wall, W. J. (2005). The DNA detectives. London: Robert Hale. Read More