The Power of DNA in the Courtroom
In 1893, Francis Galton introduced a remarkable new way to identify people ("Fingerprinting" pg 1 par 3). His observation that each individual has a unique set of fingerprints revolutionized the world of forensics. Soon, all investigators had adapted the idea to use fingerprints as a form of identification. Unfortunately, over the course of the past century, criminals have adapted to this technique and seldom leave their incriminating marks
middle of document…
However, nothing is foolproof. Problems have arisen in courtrooms already because of soiled genetic evidence. The slightest mistake can destroy an entire sample, and "no amount of effort and improved technology can reduce the error rate to zero" (NRC pg 1). These problems are not frequent, but they do have the potential to destroy a person's life. Whether the test sample is tampered with or the entire sample is used in the DNA tests, these mistakes cannot be double-checked. In lieu of these problems, the judicial system has become cautious when dealing with genetic evidence. The procedures taken when analyzing DNA samples are strictly observed, and if there is an ounce of doubt about the validity then the test is deemed inadmissible. As an added protection, the accused person is allowed the opportunity to divide DNA samples and have an independent test run. If the two test results match, the chance of having accurate, admissible samples is much greater (Ballantyne pg 149).
DNA fingerprinting is an accurate, absolute form of identification. Still, in a courtroom case where a person's life is on the line, is it worth the risk of mistake? The court is still out on that verdict, but the people who have been faced with that same question have answered loud and clear. In the much-debated O. J. Simpson trial, the jury was presented with genetic evidence