CRIMINAL JUSTICE FORENSICS

Detail how DNA is used in criminal investigations today. What is the current impact of DNA testing on the criminal justice system, and how has DNA revolutionized this system?

For students whose last name ends with A-L, include one case study of how DNA exonerated a person previously convicted of a crime and identify those areas you have discussed above.

For students whose last name ends with M-Z, include one case study of how DNA has helped convict a guilty person of a crime and identify those areas you have discussed above.

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS ALREADY COMPLETED ABOVE

THE NEXT ASSIGNMENT IS TO:

Provide feedback to two of your classmates’ posts.

Each response should be a minimum of 200 words and should include your thoughts associated with their posted information.

Additionally, you are to contribute to the discussion by adding support or constructive alternatives to your classmates’ posts.

First Student Response Jeffery Gomez

Detail how DNA is used in criminal investigations today.

“DNA is generally used to solve crimes in one of two ways. In cases where a suspect is identified, a sample of that person’s DNA can be compared to evidence from the crime scene. The results of this comparison may help establish whether the suspect committed the crime. In cases where a suspect has not yet been identified, biological evidence from the crime scene can be analyzed and compared to offender profiles in DNA databases to help identify the perpetrator. Crime scene evidence can also be linked to other crime scenes through the use of DNA databases” (Using DNA, n.d.).

DNA is what makes every individual different. DNA is located throughout an individual’s body. When evidence is collected at a crime scene that contains DNA, as the example above states, there is a chance the police can compare this DNA to a suspect or run a check in CODIS which holds many different caseloads in a database. If DNA is found at a crime scene it will be found in saliva, blood, hair, semen, and/or etc. All individuals DNA is linked back to them.

II. What is the current impact of DNA testing on the criminal justice system, and how has DNA revolutionized this system?

“DNA evidence is generally linked to DNA offender profiles through DNA databases. In the late 1980s, the federal government laid the groundwork for a system of national, state, and local DNA databases for the storage and exchange of DNA profiles. This system, called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), maintains DNA profiles obtained under the federal, state, and local systems in a set of databases that are available to law enforcement agencies across the country for law enforcement purposes. CODIS can compare crime scene evidence to a database of DNA profiles obtained from convicted offenders. CODIS can also link DNA evidence obtained from different crime scenes, thereby identifying serial criminals. In order to take advantage of the investigative potential of CODIS, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, states began passing laws requiring offenders convicted of certain offenses to provide DNA samples. Currently all 50 states and the federal government have laws requiring that DNA samples be collected from some categories of offenders” (Using DNA, n.d.).

With the many advancements in DNA it could make it possible to solve many more cases with DNA, There is testing for DNA that consists of using the PCR (polymerase chain reaction, the STR (short tandem report), and mitochondrial DNA analysis. If there is a hope of making a hit with DNA all these methods can be used in helping to form an identification. After doing so it can be made possible to test a suspect and if not CODIS can also be used.

III. For students whose last name ends with A-L, include one case study of how DNA exonerated a person previously convicted of a crime and identify those areas you have discussed above.

“The advent of DNA typing and databases has opened the door to solving some old cases, often called cold cases. Sometimes, the evidence that was collected long before DNA typing became available can be analyzed for DNA” (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2013).

“Between June 1984 and August 1985, a Southern California serial killer dubbed the Night Stalker broke into victims’ houses as they slept and attacked, murdering 13 and assaulting numerous others. With citizens on high alert, an observant teenager noticed a suspicious vehicle driving through his neighborhood on the night of August 24, 1985. He wrote down the license plate and notified police. It just so happened that the Night Stalker’s latest attack took place that night in that area, so police tracked down the car. It had been abandoned, but police found a key piece of evidence inside: a fingerprint. Using new computer system, investigators quickly matched the print to 25-year-old Richard Ramirez and plastered his image in the media. Within a week, Ramirez was recognized and captured by local citizens. He was sentenced to death and currently sits in prison on death row” (Admin, n.d.).

Second Student Response from Frank Rameriz

The First U.S. guilty conviction based on DNA evidence was in 1987. The case involved a serial rapist named Tommie Lee Andrews. This case was so monumental due to the introduction of DNA evidence being allowed in the courtroom. Even though this type of scientific breakthrough had been around for almost a decade in England, where it was developed by a fellow British scientist named Alec Jeffreys. They used this new scientific breakthrough to solve a case in England in 1986, but still did not allow it in the United States for trial.

“Andrews, a Jones High School graduate, was charged with breaking into a young Orlando woman's home and raping her. The 27-year-old identified Andrews as her attacker during the February 1988 trial. Andrews and his family members said he stayed at home that night” (Colarossi, A. 2004). Andrew’s first trial judge denied the DNA fingerprinting evidence because he believed it would confuse and mislead the jurors. This decision resulted in the first trial ending in a mistrial. So a second trial commenced and this judge did allow for DNA evidence, which resulted in Andrew's conviction in 1987. “Andrews was sentenced to 40 years in prison and is not scheduled to be released until June 2018” (Colarossi, A. 2004).

Even though the particulars, the testimony of the suspect’s family who said he was at home on the evening in question, DNA evidence prevailed. The magnitude of DNA evidence is so specific and unique to the individual, that it is very difficult to dispute this evidence. “A fingerprint impression from a scene matched to the known fingerprint of a suspect essentially proves that the person was there at some point” (Gaensslen, 2013, Sec. 7.4).

References:

Colarossi, A. (2004). CONVICTED RAPIST NOW MUST WAIT FOR DNA-RETEST RESULTS. Orlando Sentinel

Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/280078940?accountid=32521

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.