Essay Example on DNA: The Gold Standard for Finding Suspects

Introduction

In the past, fingerprints were exclusively employed in the marking of suspects in crime scenes. Still, today due to technological advancements, the gold standard for finding suspects is DNA because this method is flexible and can almost be collected from anywhere. DNA can be left behind even in minor materials like a glove used in a crime. This could be in the form of hair, skin, mucus, saliva, semen, sweat, or even earwax. The most useful evidence is when the DNA of a person is found in places where they are not supposed to be. This marks the individual as the prime suspect. Therefore due to these broad methods of collection, law enforcement officials take every piece of evidence they can be collected in crime scenes. This DNA evidence is usually protected to prevent it from getting contaminated. The main issue under DNA collection authorization of DNA collection for those who have been arrested and detained but not yet convicted. Various people have disagreed with this method, saying it is interfering with privacy, can lead to wrongful arrest and personhood while some support it, and say it is the new best way of tackling crime.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Is Compulsory DNA Effective or Ambiguous?

Policymakers came to pass and allow the compulsory extraction of DNA samples from individuals who have been convicted of a crime. Under the fourth amendment, the U.S Department of Justice passed this, which took effect on January 9, 2009 (Henning, 2009). These laws have permitted the collection of DNA for both current and former convicts who are kept in a database of DNA, which have been in several years a powerful tool that aids in the analysis of forensic evidence from crime scenes.

Compulsory DNA collection majorly involves saliva and blood samples, which are matched with that from the crime scene. Due to this, it is considered a critical complement rather than a supplement for fingerprint analysis. The FBI takes the data of DNA across the county, which they later use to create a DNA profile which they store in a comprehensive Combined DNA index system. This makes possible the matching of DNA for suspects at the local, state, and even the national level. If the court does not convict the suspect, different jurisdiction has different methods of responding to it. Therefore it is very accurate to say that all states that permit pre-conviction DNA sampling provide a very effective way of coping with situations where the arrest does not lead to a conviction.

A total of nine states formed a method to erase profiles if an arrest does not lead to a conviction, but some others have a rule that requires the released individual request for the removal of their profile from the database. For example, Louisiana needs the individual to write a formal request that is supported by a court order. Also, the person is asked to hand over a certified copy that highlights the final court order as evidence the charge was dropped. Therefore this helps erases the person from the criminal database as long the case was closed and dismissed. The idea of retaining data even if a person is not convicted, created a lot of critics concerning the compulsory collection of DNA, which made has made many people against it. Many states and federal judicial put a lot of concern on the collection from people awaiting trial.

On the other side of those opposing DNA collection, according to Ken Strutin, DNA data is detrimental and has the power to invade and reveal the private lives of these people (2014). To enable the development of criminal investigations, the profiles of the accused need to be matched with that of a more significant population. This may lead to pulling individuals with zero connections to the case to this case. Several rights can, therefore, be violated if this happens. The rights to privacy, dignity violation, abuse of physical and moral integrity of the accused person, the presumption of innocence, and the right to liberty are usually abused in the process. This sometimes even leads to the prosecution of wrong people, for instance, the incident in 1999 where Josiah Sutton was arrested and detained for four years due to charges of sexual before being exonerated in 2003 due to false DNA evidence(The Atlantic, 2016). The jury had found Sutton guilty and sentenced him for twenty years in prison. Privacy, in simple terms, is referred to as a sphere in which people have the power to exclude third parties. Therefore, the analysis of DNA tends to mostly violate this right. This is true since the acquisition of a person's information about the genome exposes the most private expression of various endogenous factors like the future and current state of health. Both legal and specific regulations are essential when it comes to criminal investigations, so only crucial information related to the data should be used. This means that DNA should only possess identification but not medical information (National Institute of Justice, 2009).

Despite this threat to privacy, the Federal passed a law that if officials or other people involved in the investigations are found to be engaged in unauthorized use or shares the DNA data in any way, they are fined a 250,000 dollars or given a prison term of up to a year. Different states also have penalties regarding this matter, which vary in the amount of fine and prison time. This regulation also changes in the extent to which this collected samples may be used beyond the scope of law enforcement. Other states allow this information to be used in other areas such as to identify missing people, retrieval of remains from a natural or a mass killing, or the purpose of statistical research. States like South Dakota and Vermont warn illegalized the use of these samples in the determination of medical and genetic defects.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Discussion regarding whether to use or not to use DNA has been in the limelight for a very long time now. Without a doubt, DNA has been beneficial in solving even the toughest crimes. The primary use of DNA to prosecute the guilty and clear the innocent on should never be forgotten. Therefore care should be taken to maintain a balance between costs and benefits that come with compulsory DNA collection. In the process of use of data to solve the crime, more regulations need to be put in place to limit the abuse of human rights. The use of this DNA can be destructive and beneficial without proper handling. Even if the method is successfully moving forward in fighting crime, some mistakes can be still be made, having a very negative influence on the people found on the other side. There are still many questions to be answered concerning the willingness of the federal government to put more concern on the issue of compulsory DNA collection.

References

Henning, A. C. (2009). Compulsory DNA Collection: A Fourth Amendment Analysis. DIANE Publishing.

Strutin, K. (2014). DNA Without Warrant: Decoding Privacy, Probable Cause, and Personhood. Rich. JL & Pub. Int., 18, 319.

The Atlantic (June 2016). The False Promise of DNA Testing. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/.

National Institute of Justice. (28 October 2009). Debating DNA Collection. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/debating-dna-collection