Introduction
According to Baker, the American justice system is in need of an evolution, which will bring the courtroom into the 21st century. Baker was speaking about the use of technology within the courtroom, but the availability of DNA has made it quite clear the American justice system needs to look forward to the future and consider all possibilities to improve the system as a whole. This paper will discuss the use of DNA in American justice system helped investigators to detect crime in a way easier than in the past.
History
DNA is more formally referred to as deoxyribonucleic acid, which is now used to identify individuals similarly, yet more advanced than finger printing. DNA is a unique pattern, which is unique to every individual, except for identical twins or bone marrow donors and recipients. DNA is able to come to concrete results, but are only useful when there is biological evidence left at the crime scene. In general, investigators are able to use DNA to make a comparison with a suspect with biological evidence, which can prove guilt or innocence. Additionally, DNA can be used to search through the databases to determine if the current perpetrator is already in the database.
What is interesting is the fact, the use of DNA gained more popularity quicker than the implementation of technology within courtrooms. By the late 1980’s the federal government laid the ground work for a system of national, local, and state DNA databases to collaborate to make one large database now referred to as the Combined DNA Index System(CODIS). This allowed law enforcement to pool their information to help aid in the process of solving crimes. Yet, in 1998, the first summit on the use of technology to improve access to justice was held, and by 2012, the Technology Initiative Grant also known as (TIG) has provided over forty million dollars in grants to various legal services agencies, courts, and nonprofit organizations. This means there was more acceptance for DNA than the implementation of technology within the courtroom.
Between the late 1980’s to the early 1990’s American states began passing laws requiring offenders of crimes to provide a DNA sample. This thought focuses on the idea criminals tend to commit more than one crime, which makes the process of collecting DNA and finger prints as an investment into future investigations. Currently, all fifty states have these DNA sampling laws to invest into the CODIS database system.
DNA is still a new concept, which is still utilizing the original technology from the 1980’s, which explains why there is a need for further research. At the same time, this research will not be successful without the implementation of better technology within the American justice system. For example, the laboratories used to conduct these tests are overwhelmed without enough personnel to process the backlog of data. This problem becomes compounded with the budget cuts of the 21st century, which have made it nearly impossible for these labs across the country to catch up. Not only are labs running DNA samples for current cases, but for cold or closed cases from the past, and for work related testing to prove an individual’s identity beyond a shadow of a doubt.
DNA Background
The idea of DNA in the modern world has changed, because it seems to be a double edged sword, which was never its original intention. On one hand, DNA allows investigators to make clear determination to the guilt or the innocence of a suspect. On the other hand, there are also prisoners who are now being released because it turns out they were actually innocent and the DNA sample set them free. This is where the double edged sword comes in, because in some cases, the DNA may prove one person did not commit the crime, but does not help the investigators figure out who did.
Shows like “CSI” have injured the validity and expectations within the American justice system. To some this seems impossible, but in reality, the certainty gained during “CSI” episodes has skewed the American perception of investigations and the use of DNA. The reality is, DNA sampling is expensive and tends to take too long since there is such an issue with the backlog of samples within the crime laboratories.
There are also issues related to the expectations of juries, because their belief is DNA should be used for every case, which is rare due to the cost. District Attorneys are able to discuss how frustrating it is for juries to acquit suspects who were found with the weapon in question and met the description of witnesses on the basis there was no DNA sampling conducted. This can be frustrating, because if there are witnesses and the suspect was found with the weapon there should not be a need for DNA to prove reasonable doubt. It is clear jury members feel the lack of DNA evidence and sampling as proof the suspect did not commit the crime, or the “system” is trying to set the suspect up.
The goal of further research is to develop and implement technology in order to enhance the access to justice in the United States. This is achieved through discussing the issues related to the implications of the digital divide, secure information, lack of education or support for self-representing litigants. There is plenty of resources available to help the public and legal professionals of the difference of mobile device capabilities, integration of court technologies, overcoming issues, and tech supported triage.
The use of DNA has made it possible for legal professionals to prove without any doubt the specific suspect was involved in the crime. The problem with this idea is the reality there are various circumstances or scenarios, which would produce biological evidence to an innocent suspect. This is especially true in poorer urban neighborhoods where people live in close quarters. Just because one person’s DNA was near the crime scene does not necessarily mean that particular individual committed the crime. This is why it has become important for DNA testing to be completed for any suspect who is facing life in prison or the death penalty.
Counterargument
DNA samples can be collected through saliva, skin, blood, semen, and hair, which can be spread by individuals throughout the day. All of these bodily fluids can be found all over the place, which is why DNA testing is not used when the district attorney feels they have enough physical evidence to convict without waiting for the lab results. The problem with this fact is it has made the use of DNA sampling to release prisoners just as common as convicting suspects. The problem is this reality can open a can of worms, because it will be quite clear there are significantly more minorities who are wrongly imprisoned compared to their white counter parts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is quite clear DNA sampling is not being used consistently across the country. Similar to other areas of the American justice system, DNA only seems to be used to exonerate wealthy suspects who would have the capability to pay for the test themselves. At the same time, it also can be used to help investigators with cold cases, which did not have any leads at the time of the offense. The crime laboratories across the United States need a serious update in technology, which can help the laboratory professionals the opportunity to catchup on the long list of backlogged DNA samples.
This investment into these laboratories should also focus on the speed or turn abound time to get the results. If the results are considered much faster, the laboratory professionals will be able to complete significantly more tests within a given work day. This should also allow DNA testing to become part of every case, so juries with skewed perceptions are no longer allowing criminals to walk the street because the district attorney believed the test was too costly and was not needed.
Making DNA sampling a requirement can also help the American justice system limit the number of wrongly imprisoned individuals. This will allow investigators and other legal professionals to focus on the facts of the case, and then use the DNA sampling to ensure their investigation came up with the correct offender, and not just their neighbor or family member. To utilize the DNA sampling for closed cases, the states need to agree the only cases which can go back to check DNA matches ae for those individuals who claimed their innocence the entire time. This is important, because it will limit the number of people who knew they did something to make them guilty. This does not mean people can be exonerated when they were guilty of other crimes, because the reality is, people who throw away their freedom by harming people in their family or community, do not deserve to live amongst the general population. DNA sampling is valuable tool, which needs to be refocused to become more efficient and help improve the investigation and legal process of the modern world.
Works Cited
American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. American Civil Liberties Union. 2016. 1 June 2016. <https://www.aclu.org/dna-testing-and-death-penalty>.
Baker, J. "COURTS SHOULD JOIN INFORMATION AGE ; USING VIDEO AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM." Orlando Sentinel 19 December 2004: G1.
Bonlello, K. "‘CSI’ has ruined the American justice system." New York Post 27 September 2015. digital. June1 2016. <http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/how-csi-twisted-our-jury-system/>.
Cabral, J. E., et al. "USING TECHNOLOGY TO ENHANCE ACCESS TO JUSTICE." Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 26.1 (2012): 241-234.
The United States Department of Justice. The United States Department of Justice. 9 September 2014. 1 June 2016. <https://www.justice.gov/ag/advancing-justice-through-dna-technology-using-dna-solve-crimes>.
