Criminal justice system has undergone tremendous changes. The advancement of technology has enhanced forensic investigation. Frye is one of the debated and cryptic decision in the United States jurisprudence. James Frye was tried in court for second-degree murder. James based his defense on systolic blood pressure test, but the court did not allow his testimony. The District of Columbia Court of Appeal put into consideration Frye’s testimony and argument. Frye test refers to the test that is streamlined towards determining the admissibility of various scientific evidence. It entails admitting scientific evidence at a trial process. The test was derived in 1923 case. The defended provide a lie detector test as evidence on whether he killed the victim of not. It is worth noting that Daubert became more popular in the criminal justice system. Frye standard is still used in various states as the law in jurisdictions. Some of the cities that use it include Washington, Illinois, New Jersey. Maryland and California.
Daubert prevents Absurd and irrational pseudoscientific assertions by an expert witness. Daubert provided guidelines in determining whether the evidence offered is based on unsupported speculations or scientific knowledge. It ensures that the evidence provided entails expert testimony. Daubert admissibility in a trial assisted the jury in making relational decisions. Expert testimony began to be streamlined towards experts experience, skills, reputation, and experience. Also, the admissibility of Daubert factors enhanced decisions making. The factors include acceptability, peer review, error rates and testing of relevant evidence (“Daubert in a Nutshell”). The expert testimony is expected to be streamlined towards the facts of the case to assist in resolving a case in dispute. Daubert’s new evidentiary was expected to stifle courtroom debate. The fear was based on the reliability of the information provided. In fact, the main concern was determining the experience and skills of the witness expert. The admissibility of the case should be based on the methodology and principles of the expert. The fear is that the decisions and the ruling in court could lead to free for all. The fears prompted the continuity of traditional tool in the adversary system. The fear was based on the essence that the jury may be prevented from learning authentic innovations and insights (Rothstein, Raeder & Crump, 2007). Also, Daubert’s standard is expected to eliminate the use of data in a trail, which compromises justice. The judges have the tendency of overlooking the components that seem weak. This puts the entire trials at risk. The judges may dismiss meritorious cases based on summary judgements.
The ethical dilemma is one of the issues that arises under the USA Patriot Act. It cases the ethical dilemma in the situation because there are various forces that drive my decision. As an individual, it is an ethical concern to provide private information to the police. This is because the information exposes the customers to a third part, which is the police. For me, I believe that it is ethically wrong to expose my customers and private information to the police. On the other hand, denying the police access to customer information exposes many people to a terror attack. The loss of privacy information of my customers is necessary and inevitable in such situation if I am to protect lives. Giving up the customer information, which is my basic private right. In this case, it is a good price to pay for protecting the society against terrorist attacks (Cropf, & Bagwell, 2016). Therefore, the ethical dilemma arises when the decisions to made raise various ethical questions.
The emergency involved in the cases is very crucial for the police and the society. Disclosure of information is driven by the emergency that entails imminent dangers. Based on the case, imminent danger could be a reality; hence, as an individual, I do not have to fear the aspect of civil liability. A warrant could be a requirement, but the situation is an emergency leaving no opportunity to obtain a warrant. Customer information is crucial to the police. As the owner, it is essential to ensure that the information id disclosed to the right government agency. In this situation, immunity is not guaranteed because the court might establish that the emergency response was not valid (Cropf, & Bagwell, 2016). In the dilemma, the main focus of the educating investigators concerns on their legal obligations. The investigators should be aware of the ethical dilemma in the case study. Role-playing is important because those who are entrusted with the security of the citizens are made aware in a classroom environment of the ethical dilemmas.
The public is supposed to provide support for law enforcement. This responsibility can be eroded but sneak and peak searches. Sneak and peak warrants do not apply exclusively to acts of terrorism. The Fourth Amendment is essential in this situation. The government should notify the person before the warrant is carried out (Cropf, & Bagwell, 2016). The techniques violate the ethical rules that protect the individual. In the critical analysis, the forensic investigators are expected to comprehend the requirements of the fourth amendment before carrying out a search. Also, they must focus on discretion and respect for citizens.
References
“Daubert in a Nutshell.” Retrieved on 17th April 2016 from http://www.daubertontheweb.com/Chapter_2.htm.
Cropf, R. A., & Bagwell, T. C. (2016). Ethical Issues and Citizen Rights in the Era of Digital Government Surveillance.
Rothstein, P. F., Raeder, M. S., & Crump, D. (2007). Evidence in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
