Wrongful Imprisonment of Innocents: Unidentified & Indecipherable - Research Paper

Introduction

The frequency of wrongful or mistaken imprisonment of innocent ' suspects is not simply unidentified but also indecipherable. It is important to note that there is no way of determining a wrongful conviction, and if there were a way to resolve this, then there certainly would be no errors, to begin. In light of this, very few wrong judgments are revealed, and those that are exposed are not demonstrative of the group entirely. Particularly in America, a high portion of the cases that are discovered and result in exoneration are focused among very tiny marginal cases in which the suspects are condemned to death. However, in most cases, wrongful convictions have condemned innocent men and women to spend a decade of their lives in prisons before new evidence comes to light, and they are exonerated and released. In other cases, the wrongly convicted individuals on death row are executed before any evidence is found (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). The rate of wrongful convictions has exposed the faulty of the criminal justice system and, in many instances, lead to the abolition of the death penalty in various states. It is important to note that a large percentage of death row convictions that result in exoneration of the convict and release is due to the discovery of DNA evidence that provides that the convict is not guilty of the crime accused and convicted for. Hence DNA evidence should be a mandatory factor in determining who is eligible for the death penalty to control wrongful executions.

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

Save 25%

Background

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), also called the building block or the hereditary finger or blueprint of human life was first discovered by a researcher known as scientist Francis H.C. cricks and James D. Watson. These two scientists recognized the binary helix edifice of DNA, which resembles a twisted ladder, and they also identified DNA as the materials that make up the heritable code of an alive organism (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). The patterns of the elements that institute the deoxyribonucleic acid of a life form regulate the growth of a life form. It is important to note that DNA is similar to every cell throughout the body of a person, whether in the skin, blood cells, or even sperm. With the exemption of indistinguishable twins, no two persons have a similar DNA outline.

Among the recent apparatuses that science can provide for the assessment of scientific prove a powerful yet debatable analysis of DNA or the materials that constitute the hereditary makeup of a person. DNA profiling scrutinizes the DNA discovered in physical crime scenes such as blood or hair to establish whether it corresponds to the DNA taken from a particular individual making DNA a standard tool used form of trial in felony trials. The method similarly utilized in ligation, mainly in specific cases such as the paternity determination.

In the examination of DNA in illicit investigations, a sample from the convict is taken, and through the utilization of very sophisticated scientific tools, it is disassembled, and the selected segments of the DNA is measured. Then the DNA contour of the suspect is equated with one that is derived from the evidence presented to establish whether the two are identical. However, if the two do not match, then the individual is eliminated from the investigation (American Civil Liberties Union, 2020). On the contrary, if the sample is a match, then further statistical examination is done to establish the likelihood that the sample of the evidence from the scene came from another person with the same DNA profile as the defendant. This arithmetic evidence is used by prosecutors or the judges to establish whether a person is acquitted or guilty.

However, to produce biological evidence that inadmissible in court in case of a criminal case. The forensic investigators must be well conversant and trained concerning the handling of biological samples for DNA analysis. The analysts trained on better methods to minimize the risk of contamination of pieces of evidence while maintaining that the probable source of DNA and, besides preserving the source and adequately identified. As in any other forensic work, the analysists must attend to the important and essentials of preserving the provided specimens. The experts must also keep the chain of custody of the samples by labeling and following any constitutional or statutory requirements that guide the collection as well as the handling of the whole process.

However, before the findings of the DNA is present in court, the funding must be passed through intense analysis by individuals who have the proper expertise and handled with appropriate care to prevent any errors. The DNA analysts are working the laboratories, and that participate in the federal burial of investigation's national DNA index system or any individuals that are accredited and reorganized (Aronson & Cole, 2009). These organizations. These individuals must meet the required education as well as the training requirements. The DNA tests must be done in a laboratory with dedicated facilities and equipment that must meet the FBIQAS requirements. Before the lab analysis of the DNA materials ids done, the investigation at the crime scene is conducted to establish the kind of biological materials in question. However, in other cases, the screening of any biological materials is conducted in the laboratories to determine what kind of biological fluids or materials that may be found at the crime scene.

In any instance, the sample provided should be big enough to allow the defence to conduct an autonomous RFLP examination. However, there ought always to be sufficient for at least PCR investigation. Besides, this is a method that is primarily utilized in criminal justice in the future to amplify the DNA in evidentiary samples. Therefore, the laboratories used by the prosecution should be held liable and must follow the reorganized standards of disclosure.

The capital punishment system is doubtlessly full of inconsistencies. Regardless of these inconsistencies, the United States is widely known for executions, most of which are done and concluded through unfair processes. As of October 2015, the United States goes on record as having executed 1414 individuals since 1976. The ideal issue to observe is whether these executions happened after a conclusive confirmation of the convicted guilty of the capital crimes (Death Penalty Information Center, 2020). The perfect sentiment shared by most people is that the convictions were wrongful and could have been avoided if there were adequate mechanisms put in place during investigations. Today, such exceptional advocacy against executions is shared by many people, most of who have had members of their families executed.

The ideal process of execution is not simple. It should be a process where there is adequate evidence that the individual has committed the felony. The only possible way that is accurate to identify an individual who has committed a capital crime, for instance, rape or robbery with violence, can only be through the examination of the DNA. As identified, mistakes in judgment after a person has already been executed cannot be corrected, which is the reason that there is a need for surety when making such a decision. Contrary to the instances where a person is imprisoned, a death sentence is the complete annihilation of life, and releasing the person from prison can be possible. Therefore, there is a need for effectiveness when making a decision in which a death penalty is to be made. There is, however, no room for making mistakes because such individuals cannot be released from the grave.

There are also various where there are cases of mistakes being done while giving death penalties have been witnessed. About 156 individuals have been exonerated from the death row since 1973. The reason that they were released was that the proceedings that saw the judgment being made were not based on justifiable reasons (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, n.d). In some cases, there was not enough evidence, while in other cases, investigations revealed that they were not the ones who committed the felonies. Therefore, considering that 156 individuals have been released, there must have been many more who have not found justice. They had to die for offenses that they had not committed, and neither were they culpable. The release of such a significant number by use od DNA evidence showcases that there have been mistakes in the application and advocacy of death sentences in the court processes. There is thus a need for a mechanism that seals off all possible margins of errors while concluding death penalties. It is based on this reason that DNA proves an adequate mechanism.

Till today, capital punishment remains an issue that needs adequate mechanisms of decision making before it is reached. While some countries like Ireland have already abolished the practice, in the United States, as of April 2015 has 3002 inmates awaiting execution (Mccooey, 2015). Thinking of such a high number and with 31 states still acknowledging death penalties, it is necessary to observe their trial processes. Just as has been the trend, many of these could have been sentenced in the wrong way. In most instances, they could be the scapegoats who were found usable for the cases to be completed. But the goal of the criminal justice system is to offer justice to all people seeking it. It would, therefore, be wrong for the criminal justice system to adopt injustice for felonies, which is the reason that the use of DNA while making such life-involving decisions becomes quintessential.

From statistical analysis, for every ten people who have been sentenced for death, one must be released. Therefore, at least 10% of the cases where the death penalty is administered are innocent cases (Davis & Snell, 2018). The release of these often happens when DNA observations are made. Investigations involving the DNA are fulfilling since they seek to explore whether the person who has been convicted is the real culprit in the case (Davis & Snell, 2018). DNA investigations are not just speculative but conclusive. In case DNA results indicate actual involvement in the killing or the murder, the concerned party cannot have a way to prove they did not engage in the felony as there is sufficient detail. The only sufficient mechanism that can, therefore, be used to identify the real culprits of capital crimes is only the use of DNA.

The increased use of DNA evidence in capital felonies has helped confirm people as guilty or innocent. The best thing about DNA, which makes its use in evidence to be useful is because of its uniqueness and accuracy. Unlike other informational evidence that is offered in courts, DNA evidence is accurate and reliable since everyone has their DNA (National Research Council, 1996). Except in the case of identical twins and people who have had bone marrow transplants, DNA can help uniquely identify the person who committed the crime. Consequently, it can be used in conviction and acquittal of a suspect who would have otherwise been condemned without having been the one who committed or even acquitted when guilty (National Academy of Sciences, 1992). Also, based on the fact that the DNA evaluation process is carried out by specialists, collection, and preservation and testing are done in environments where there is almost zero room for failure, which makes the process a dependable one in the case of the death penalty.

A quick observation of mistakes that have happened and that have led to convictions of people and subsequent sentencing for death showcases poorly or unconvincing processes of...