In observing the preceding decades following the first use of DNA analysis through technology in 1986, the criminal justice system has manifestly prioritized this specific high-tech DNA evidence in every case following the discovery. Maurice Wilkins once said “DNA is like Mida’s gold, everyone who touches it goes mad,” and in this case it corresponds fittingly. As the material that accompanies the process of DNA technology progressively becomes further “professional” and more frequent, criminal justice professionals are beginning to rely on the certainty that supports the technology, which often means they want any available DNA for every case (Hinesly). However, the main concern with this situation is whether or not we are putting forth too
…show more content…
In this case, DNA was used to locate and convict a criminal in England when two girls in Leicestershire were raped and murdered. Thousands of local men voluntarily provided DNA samples following movements pushing towards this method, but none of the samples matched the evidence found at the crime scenes. Soon thereafter, one man confessed to providing a sample for a friend who paid him to do so. Investigators obtained a real sample of the friend, Colin Pitchfork, and concluded that he was the killer due to matching DNA segments. Later, he then confessed to both murders. The point about DNA samples is that when comparing them between two different people, the odds of every segment matching are usually very small--often less than one in a billion (“DNA”). This would generally lead others to believe that DNA evidence is anything but prone to mistakes and misleadings in criminal cases, but this has proven to be false due to misconceptions and bias within cases as well as contamination of evidence within forensic labs. The collection, retention, and use of forensic DNA has thereon led to the rapid development of law and criminal justice practices
In this case, DNA was used to locate and convict a criminal in England when two girls in Leicestershire were raped and murdered. Thousands of local men voluntarily provided DNA samples following movements pushing towards this method, but none of the samples matched the evidence found at the crime scenes. Soon thereafter, one man confessed to providing a sample for a friend who paid him to do so. Investigators obtained a real sample of the friend, Colin Pitchfork, and concluded that he was the killer due to matching DNA segments. Later, he then confessed to both murders. The point about DNA samples is that when comparing them between two different people, the odds of every segment matching are usually very small--often less than one in a billion (“DNA”). This would generally lead others to believe that DNA evidence is anything but prone to mistakes and misleadings in criminal cases, but this has proven to be false due to misconceptions and bias within cases as well as contamination of evidence within forensic labs. The collection, retention, and use of forensic DNA has thereon led to the rapid development of law and criminal justice practices