The research focuses on one specific case and discusses the usage of forensic techniques involved with prosecuting and convicting an offender.
The science of forensic investigation has become a highly popular tool in law enforcement in today's time. It has proven to be useful in sometimes locating evidence that proves the innocence of those thought to have committed a crime. Also it works to prosecute those who are irrefutably guilty of committing violent and criminal acts against other human beings. Although offenders might go free for a certain period of time, forensic techniques are gradually minimizing those possibilities of getting away and remaining free once a crime has been committed. For instance, one stray hair or a cigarette butt with a lip imprint left on it can be the clue law enforcement needs to apprehend a possible suspect in relation to a murder, rape, burglary, or possible other heinous act against those in society. In fact, some researchers state that forensic science has made all the difference in how the criminal system now works in the United States.
DNA data banks are worthy tools in legal investigations due to the fact that if a previous offender commits another crime and gets away, the forensic evidence can be analyzed and compared to information stored in the DNA data banks. Often times this hurries the process along and provides the necessary means to apprehend a previous convicted criminal of a serious crime against another (Office of Forensic Services 2006). For instance, in the case where a young financial analyst was on her way to work, she was confirmed to have been abducted and dragged into a freight elevator where she was raped and brutally beaten, possibly left for dead as well. However, the victim bit her offender and the blood that was left behind on her jacket enabled investigators to pinpoint the person responsible for the crime. Often time's forensic evidence such as this is what it takes to apprehend a suspect. Normally it is the inclusion of skin and hair fibers that are found under the victims fingernails that normally lead to the conviction of a known violent suspect (Office of Forensic Services 2006).
The reason that forensic techniques are highly useful is that they do provide the irrefutable proof of who committed a crime. Now this can't always be 100% for a certainty as there have been some cases that have been overturned. However 99.9% of the time this type of DNA evidence provides the validity needed, as well as the burden of proof that the justice system is looking for to seal a conviction against a violent offender (Office of Forensic Services 2006). Another similar case that utilized forensic evidence was one where an offender actually had a soda in the home he was burglarizing. He went so far as to use a straw which left a good lip imprint. This one small mistake by Angelo Powell, who had a long train of burglaries in behind him lead to his arrest and conviction (Office of Forensic Services 2006). His DNA was taken from the soda bottle he left at the scene of the crime and compared to the stored information in the
The utilization of forensic evidence to prosecute possible criminal offenders has become a well known strategy of law enforcement. This research provides data that shows how well it works in prosecuting and convicting criminals who have engaged in severely violent criminal actions often times resulting in the deaths of the victims…
Simpson case. A lot of the discourse of the public about the O.J. Simpson case begins with the argument that the DNA evidence proved the guilt of Simpson conclusively and quickly proceeds to an analysis of elements that may explain the reason why the jury in spite of all the evidence voted to acquit Simpson.
However, in 2001, this law was changed which allowed keeping the DNA indefinitely. Again in 2003, the law was altered to collect DNA on arrest of a recordable crime rather than just a point of charge. This principle of maintaining the DNA of anyone arrested highlighted countless innocent people including children who had never been convicted, but have their DNA retained in the Database forever.
of evidence. In discussing this evidence, the admissibility and the relevance of the evidence will shed light on the system as it relates to the course of justice. Evidence Doris Doris has alleged that Donald hit her. Her story is that she was struck by him during a party where they both were in attendance.
(Committee on DNA Forensic Science, 1996). DNA identification is one of the most valuable instruments for the contemporary criminologists. This type of analysis provides a very high probability of tracing the criminal in case at least some genetic material that belongs to him is present on the crime scene.
The aim of this research paper is to analyze the recent publications on DNA evidence in order to determine the factors that influence the decision of the court and why sometimes the evidence is not accepted. Some of the articles selected for analysis discuss DNA benefits and disadvantages of DNA evidence; others try to predict the future usage of DNA test results, third compare with the fingerprint evidence, while some are focused on the court decisions.
Kevin Godwin was charged with the first-degree murder of Joseph Dillard on 7 June 2004 and of first-degree burglary on the same date. We chose this case because it was televised and thus we were able to achieve a better understanding of all of the evidence presented by the attorneys and witnesses.
Because of the advancements in forensic science in general and the subsequent development of this database, the family of Bonnie Craig is finally at peace and justice is served—after thirteen long years. With the
ceptable probability of being correct” through the introduction of evidence that leads to what is intended to be the truth.2 In the case study that is being discussed in this paper the defendant Donald is being accused of having hit Doris, which has led to the emergence of