DNA evidence has become more advanced and accurate means of identification.
Everyone has his or her own unique DNA and no two sets are alike. With modern advances small samples many years old can now be identified breathing new life in cold cases and in some cases set innocent men and women free by clearing their name (Dempsey & Forst, 2011). This has created a backlog of cases both old and new. With a limited number of qualified labs it has led to mix up between cases. DNA has been a determining factor for many, if not most, cases since its discovery (Dempsey & Forst, 2011). Some of the problems with the use of DNA is the possibilities of contamination by the mishandling of the sample, mixing up samples in the lab, this was created due to the backlog, and getting samples from a suspect who is not in any of the databases without violating his or her constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth
Amendment (Dempsey & Forst, 2011).One of the biggest challenges in using DNA evidence is defending it in court against expert witnesses. The prosecutor has to be able to prove why their
DNA was found where it was, how it was discovered, when it …show more content…
In conducting the DNA test, the criminalist is able to extract a genetic “fingerprint,” which can then be compared with the genetic fingerprint of a DNA sample taken from the accused (Garland, 2011 p 135). Both DNA evidence and blood grouping evidence are forms of statistical proof –DNA evidence being the most useful in determining identity. For example, blood grouping evidence may narrow the range of other potential suspects with the same blood type to one out of two hundred, whereas DNA evidence may, as a practical matter, eliminate any possibility that there exists another potential perpetrator by identifying the specific genetic “makeup” of the accused (Garland, 2011 p
Everyone has his or her own unique DNA and no two sets are alike. With modern advances small samples many years old can now be identified breathing new life in cold cases and in some cases set innocent men and women free by clearing their name (Dempsey & Forst, 2011). This has created a backlog of cases both old and new. With a limited number of qualified labs it has led to mix up between cases. DNA has been a determining factor for many, if not most, cases since its discovery (Dempsey & Forst, 2011). Some of the problems with the use of DNA is the possibilities of contamination by the mishandling of the sample, mixing up samples in the lab, this was created due to the backlog, and getting samples from a suspect who is not in any of the databases without violating his or her constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth
Amendment (Dempsey & Forst, 2011).One of the biggest challenges in using DNA evidence is defending it in court against expert witnesses. The prosecutor has to be able to prove why their
DNA was found where it was, how it was discovered, when it …show more content…
In conducting the DNA test, the criminalist is able to extract a genetic “fingerprint,” which can then be compared with the genetic fingerprint of a DNA sample taken from the accused (Garland, 2011 p 135). Both DNA evidence and blood grouping evidence are forms of statistical proof –DNA evidence being the most useful in determining identity. For example, blood grouping evidence may narrow the range of other potential suspects with the same blood type to one out of two hundred, whereas DNA evidence may, as a practical matter, eliminate any possibility that there exists another potential perpetrator by identifying the specific genetic “makeup” of the accused (Garland, 2011 p