Every cell in an individual’s body contains a full genetic program that gives that individual their own genetic identity. This contributes to genetic testing and how individuals can be identified today. One of the first known DNA identifications was in India in 1193 where Jai Chand, a great Indian monarchy, was destroyed by Muhammad’s army and Jai Chand, Raja of Kanauji, was murdered and he was then identified by his false teeth (Balachander, Babu, Jimson, Priyadharsini, & Masthan, 2016, p. 3). Ever since then, genetic identification has evolved to many more branches including crime and health records. Today, privacy of a person’s genetic information is very important for some and not as important for others.
There are strong opinions about …show more content…
In 1994, the DNA Identification Act solidified the FBI’s desire to build a central database that would contain DNA data provided by all state and local jurisdictions, as well as profiles collected by the military and the FBI (Pearson & DiLascio, 2016, p. 1). Annemie Patyn and Kris dierickx (2016) explain in their article “Forensic DNA databases: genetic testing as societal choice” that “Forensic DNA databases are used to identify DNA samples found at a crime scene. To this end, a profile is made from the DNA sample, after which this profile can be compared with already identified profiles from a database” (p. 319). Furthermore, the databases allow crime-scene investigators to solve cases faster by already having criminals genetic tests on file. By already having the genetic testing on file, the investigators can see the past crime the suspect has been in to help determine what their consequences will be. This allows us to safely close cases by knowing the suspects genetic information and storing it in databases in case they decided to commit another …show more content…
Levin (2013) explains both sides agree that firing an employee merely based on their genetic disease would be unjustified and wrongful, but if that disease led to failure to perform the job (or possibly to significantly increase costs to the employer), then termination could be justified (p. 36). The two sides also agree that criminals should be convicted for their crime and that they should be found after the crime has been done. Most importantly, they agree that the safety of humans is a major concern but each side thinks of it as different ways. The arguments of both sides are very strong and have examples to back up their cases. In the end, each side 's goals are substantially the same that each want to have a safe
There are strong opinions about …show more content…
In 1994, the DNA Identification Act solidified the FBI’s desire to build a central database that would contain DNA data provided by all state and local jurisdictions, as well as profiles collected by the military and the FBI (Pearson & DiLascio, 2016, p. 1). Annemie Patyn and Kris dierickx (2016) explain in their article “Forensic DNA databases: genetic testing as societal choice” that “Forensic DNA databases are used to identify DNA samples found at a crime scene. To this end, a profile is made from the DNA sample, after which this profile can be compared with already identified profiles from a database” (p. 319). Furthermore, the databases allow crime-scene investigators to solve cases faster by already having criminals genetic tests on file. By already having the genetic testing on file, the investigators can see the past crime the suspect has been in to help determine what their consequences will be. This allows us to safely close cases by knowing the suspects genetic information and storing it in databases in case they decided to commit another …show more content…
Levin (2013) explains both sides agree that firing an employee merely based on their genetic disease would be unjustified and wrongful, but if that disease led to failure to perform the job (or possibly to significantly increase costs to the employer), then termination could be justified (p. 36). The two sides also agree that criminals should be convicted for their crime and that they should be found after the crime has been done. Most importantly, they agree that the safety of humans is a major concern but each side thinks of it as different ways. The arguments of both sides are very strong and have examples to back up their cases. In the end, each side 's goals are substantially the same that each want to have a safe