In addition to this, DNA evidence can

In the past, there have been significant steps in forensics and criminal
justice department. The introduction of DNA has boosted criminal
investigations. It is important to note that DNA can be used to identify and
solve crimes. It has been established that DNA has the ability to solve
criminal cases with incredible accuracy when biological evidence exists. All
the forensic methods for individualization such as fingerprints, dental
impressions, hair and fibre comparisons, voice spectrograms, and neutron-activation
analysis tend to demand an ability to match samples with reasonable accuracy
with respect to characteristics that can assist to differentiate one source
from the other. In addition to this, DNA evidence can also be used to solve
cases that took place prior to the development of the DNA-testing technology.
Similar to how the fingerprint works, DNA profile has also a unique profile,
except for identical twins, who share the same genetic code. It is important to
note that unlike the fingerprints, it is only a minuscule amount of genetic
material which is needed to identify a suspect. It is because of these reason
that criminal investigation field considers DNA evidence to be reliable in many
investigations although there are cases in which people believe that DNA
evidence is not reliable in all investigation. This paper will discuss the
significance of DNA during investigation and examine the shortcomings of
including DNA in some investigations.

Discussion

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            In the criminal
department, DNA is generally applied to solve crimes in different ways. Usually
in most cases where a suspect has been identified, a sample of the suspect’s
DNA can be compared with the evidence from the scene of crime (Becker & Dutelle, 2013). The results that are obtained from
the comparison maybe used to establish whether the person has committed the
crime or not. In addition to this, in the cases where the suspect has not yet
been identified, the forensic department is subjected to carry on with
biological evidence from the crime scene which is analysed and compared with
criminal profiles in the DNA database. This is carried to establish in order to
establish the identity of the perpetrator (Brandl, 2014). It is important to note that crime scene evidence can also be related
to other crime scenes through the use of the DNA database.

            For instance, if a
person is convicted of sexual assault, at the time of his conviction, the
person is required to provide DNA sample, and the result DNA sample is entered
into a DNA database (Brandl,
2014). After several
years later, another sexual assault is committed, a sexual assault victim will
be examined and the forensic or the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner will be
required to obtain the biological evidence from the victim. This evidence will
be analysed and the resulting profile compared with the sexual assault
offenders whose DNA evidence are in the DNA databases (Becker & Dutelle, 2013). A match will be made if the same
offender who was previously convicted of sexual assault and his DNA obtained
and entered into the DNA database is compared with the DNA obtained from the
sexual victim. This is how the DNA will be used to solve the criminal case.

            In the criminal
investigation departments, the forensic use the DNA that is linked to the DNA
offender profiles through the DNA database. During the 1980s, the federal
government established the groundwork for a system of national, state, and
local DNA database for the storage and exchange of the DNA profiles. This
system, referred to as the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), maintains the DNA
profiles that are obtained under the federal, state, and local systems in a set
of database that are available to law enforcement agencies across the nation
for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can be used to compare the crime scene
evidence to database of DNA to a database of DNA profiles obtained from
convicted criminals (Karagiozis
& Sgaglio, 2005).
In addition to this, this system can also be used to link DNA evidence that are
obtained from different crimes scenes, thereby identifying serial criminals.

            If the forensics is
allowed to use the DNA evidence to its full potential, the criminal
investigation department may be able to solve and may even prevent some of the
country’s most serious crimes. Despite the ability of how the DNA can be used,
the current federal and state DNA collection and analysis systems need
improvement (Karagiozis
& Sgaglio, 2005). In
order for the DNA to be admissible in court of law, the DNA evidence should be
accurate. Supposing that the detectives properly collected and controlled the
biological samples in a standard approach and the forensic scientists established
the accepted methods and conducted the analysis appropriately, then the DNA
evidence is said to be precise. It is important to note that the chances of one
individuals DNA profile matching with another individual is very little,
meaning it is about one in a billion by some estimates (Price & Legal Research Foundation,
2003). Comparing to the
fingerprinting and even the people who experienced the crime, DNA evidence is more
effective in proving a crime and convicting a crime.

            Since the technology in
the DNA evidence has been enhanced (the flaws will be discussed later in the
paper), criminal attorneys progressively rely on DNA evidence to verify a suspect’s
guilt or innocence. This shows that the trustworthiness of the DNA evidence
depends on a number of aspects which includes the quantity and quality of the
sample analysed and the test site apparatus used in analysing the DNA sample.

            In most cases, DNA
evidence is not unassailable. The errors in the collection and the inability of
handling the evidence correctly and in the required manner can result in the
exclusion of the DNA evidence which is on trial. The evidence is needed to be
collected and handled properly. There are ways in which forensics and other
crime solving team fail to adhere on ways of handling the DNA samples or
evidence thus making them not admissible in the court of law. In most cases,
the public crime laboratories are overwhelmed by the backlogs of unanalysed DNA
samples (Pyrek,
2007). If such a case
takes place, the evidence is then not admissible in the court of law. In
addition to this, the labs may be poorly equipped to handle the increasing
influx of the DNA evidence. It is here that there will be the problem of
backlogs and lack of up-to-date technology that result in the delays in the
administration of justice in the court of law. In order for other people in the
justice system to trust the DNA evidence and rely on them, there should be more
research conducted which should be used to develop a faster methods for
analysing DNA evidence (Becker & Dutelle, 2013). It is also important to note that
professional working in the criminal justice system needs additional training
and assistance in order to make sure that optimal use of DNA evidence to solve
crimes and assist the victims.

            There have been cases
where the DNA evidence have been challenged in court and some of them have been
considered to be admissible because of the way it was handled or the approach
it was used to be analysed was not within the standard procedure (Pyrek, 2007). The ability to challenge the DNA evidence,
the defence attorneys tend to emphasize on the behaviour of the detectives and
forensic experts in an effort to cast uncertainty on the results of the DNA
profiles, rather than aim the dependability of the DNA profiling. It is
important to note that a well-known example of this is the defence strategy
that was used in the O.J Simpson trial. In the O.J Simpson vs. the People case,
the prosecution has DNA evidence prepared and was prepared to use in the court.
The defence in this case before the prosecution presented the DNA evidence they
anticipated the nature of the evidence they would meet in the court (Reiher, 2010).  The
prosecution on the other hand were sure that the DNA evidence that they had
(keep in mind that the DNA evidence matched the suspect) would be used to
prosecute O.J Simpson and prove that he was the murder offender.

            The trial and the forensic
department have trust on the dependability of the DNA analysis that is
performed by both private and government forensic labs. The question in the
forensic department and crime investigating field is if the DNA evidence is
reliable in all investigation (Pyrek, 2007). There are cases where DNA evidence will not be used to convict a
convict or it is not enough to prosecute suspects. Some of the cases include
cases where the poor collection of the DNA or cases where there is no DNA
evidence collected to convict suspects. This means that while the DNA evidence
is capable for supplying reliable evidence, it is not always enough to make
prosecutions. Lawyers challenging the inclusions of the DNA will focus on how
the evidence was collected, how it was transported, storage or how it was
isolated, how the evidence was tested by qualified technicians, and how
efficient the database is (Becker & Dutelle, 2013).

            DNA evidence can also
be dismissed even if it matches a suspect. When people hear that the DNA
matched, they assumed that the samples came from the same person. Despite the
DNA matching an individual and in this case assume that all care has been taken
care properly through collecting, testing, and analysing, there may be chance
that the match is a coincidence (Pyrek, 2007). In this case, if the chances are not that remote, introducing the
evidence could be misleading. For instance, in the Rea V. Gower case, a
California court concluded that the DNA evidence should be dismissed. This was
because when the defendant’s DNA matched that from a handgun and magazine clip
that was in use in the crime, the expert testified that there was a one-in-one
thousand chance that the match was likely to be coincidental as to the handgun,
and one-in-ten  as to the clip. It was
established that this odd were too great to justify giving the jury such
evidence.

Conclusion

            In recent criminal
investigations, it has been established that DNA evidence are reliable in many
investigations. The state and the national courts previously were against the responsibility
of the police to acquire DNA samples from arrested people. Today, the police
are allowed to get the DNA samples from the suspects and register it in the DNA
database. The individuals proposing DNA evidence are certain that that the
success of lawmakers attacks on the DNA dependability will erode the public trust
in its use thus leading the country to have less abilities in bringing
criminals to justice. Criminal investigation field considers DNA evidence to be
reliable in many investigations although there are cases in which people
believe that DNA evidence is not reliable in all investigation. On the other
hand, defence lawyers and other people who doubt the reliability of the DNA
evidence have been identified to strongly disagree with many of the claims
about the reliability of the DNA evidence. In most cases, the public crime
laboratories are overwhelmed by the backlogs of unanalysed DNA samples. If such
a case takes place, the evidence is then not admissible in the court of law. In
addition to this, the labs may be poorly equipped to handle the increasing
influx of the DNA evidence. It is here that there will be the problem of
backlogs and lack of up-to-date technology that result in the delays in the
administration of justice in the court of law. The results that are obtained
from the comparison maybe used to establish whether the person has committed
the crime or not. In addition to this, in the cases where the suspect has not
yet been identified, the forensic department is subjected to carry on with
biological evidence from the crime scene which is analysed and compared with
criminal profiles in the DNA database.