|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criminal Justice: Forensics
Introduction
Forensic science today presents with technological solutions that outweigh its disadvantages. The following presents a view of the history of forensic science. Next, a current analysis of forensics is discussed along with predictions of the impact of forensics on criminal investigations. This is followed by conclusions.
History of Forensics
Human beings have been aware of fingerprints since ancient times but the use of fingerprints in forensics dates back to around one hundred years ago. The first use of fingerprints to identify a person was recorded in 1899 in India. As the use of fingerprints continued, ten prints were treated as a record of identity since it was believed that no two people have the same prints (Ferrall, 2001).
Other early means of conviction included the use of the lie detector. In 1922, an African American male was arrested for robbery and confessed to an earlier murder, later stating that this confession was part of a deal with police. The lie detector was used for the defense but the jury found the suspect guilty. By 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals replaced this earlier case with the use of a multipronged test and the polygraph findings were admitted as scientific evidence. Courts at this earlier time and at present remain hesitant to allow polygraph evidence (Sands, 2009).
While the current trend in forensics is the use of DNA, this use dates back to earlier times. The first use of DNA in a criminal investigation was in England in 1986. Two rape and murder victims were found and Buckland was convicted with DNA fingerprinting since this tied him to the crimes. Ion 1989 Applebee was convicted of sexual assault with DNA matching of his blood sample to semen on victim’s clothes. In 2000, Boney was convicted of rape due to the treat of using DNA evidence (he confessed). DNA solved an early crime, identifying body parts in 1992. DNA is also being used for paternity cases. However, O.J. Simpson was not convicted even though DNA matched blood stains at his home with his wife (Porter, 2005).
Current Forensics
The current trend in forensics continues with the use of DNA with methods that make it possible to get a conviction based on blood at the scene, on semen, and even on a postage stamp (Porter, 2005). Advances in DNA technology have increased the application of this method in forensic science. More crime scene samples are now tested (Raymond, Walsh, Van Oorschot, Gunn, & Roux, 2004). Raymond et al. stated that forensic evidence is used more and more to help with investigations of crimes. Fingerprints and DNA are the two most valuable forms of forensic evidence in these investigations.
Fingerprints have been used for over one hundred years to convict criminals but technology has increased this use. DNA can now be replicated many times and amplified due to technology and this allows for more usable DNA profiles. DNA can be gathered form fingerprints, traces of skin, and more. Technology has led to the increase of DNA analysis form food such as hotdogs and lollypops, lip cosmetics, and even dandruff. The ability to get DNA profiles from the debris and cells that are transferred with skin contact (trace DNA analysis) has increased the ability of investigators. A DNA profile can be generated from only one cell. Due to these changes, there are increased challenges in forensic science to present the evidence in court in context which is harder with trace DNA interpretations (Raymond et al., 2004).
Impacts of Forensics
DNA fingerprinting has become more common along with the related concerns (Noble, 2006). DNA tests and resulting databases are viewed as highly intrusive and this may not contribute to the common good of all. Technology must be balanced with an increase in accountably to avoid injustices. Thus, impacts of forensics today are that there are ethical, legal, and social implications that must be considered when using forensic DNA profiling. For example, DNA analysis has lead to a date base of felony sex offenses which was initiated in the 1990s; due to technology, this database is found in over forty states but only four states and the federal government permit the inclusion of DNA for all offenders (Noble, 2006).
Thus, current use of DNA profiling has risks related to privacy and racial ethnic justice. Family forensic DNA seeks to match parents to a child and this may violate the privacy of the family. When ethnic minorities are involved, privacy issues are pronounced. In addition to these ethical concerns, the use of DNA in the courtroom for conviction is associated with legal issues. The reliability of DNA evidence is questioned from a sociological perspective. DNA evidence is only one type of evidence and it is not infallible. It is not clear if society is able to generate bias and error-free DNA evidence (Nobel, 2006).
Despite these considerations, forensic science is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. As noted by the Court, the case of Escobedo v. Illinois resulted in the finding that a reliance on confession is less reliable than forensic evidence (Giannelli, 2006). DNA profiling has revolutionized forensic science but use of findings remains controversial. For example, an initial case, People v. Castro, challenged the use of DNA evidence. This led to the development of extensive standards for the use of this evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, was followed by General Electric Co. v. Joiner and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. These cases are referred to as the Daubert trilogy. These cases led to the establishment of a reliability test in order that expert testimony is admissible in federal systems with trial courts acting as gatekeepers. This trilogy revolutionized the admissibility of scientific evidence in the courts. Currently, crime laboratories must be accredited, proficiency in testing must be shown, and technical procedures are standardized.
Today’s age is one of technology in identification (Gill, 2005). While the use of technology for DNA fingerprinting has related concerns, it also has far reaching implications for investigations, courts, and criminals. Gill stated that fingerprint analysis is the standard in forensic analysis and in older times police relied on the use of conventional analog cameras with traditional chemical film for photographs of fingerprints. Today, police are able to use technology to gather and compare fingerprints. Digital databases keep records that allow for fingerprint searches. Homeland Security’s US-Visit, a government agency, conducted searches for more than 40 million people since 2005 to determine if arrives in America were cleared by overseas departure customs or if this person is on the Watch List. The FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Information System conducts 130,000 employment background and criminal checks daily using computerized fingerprint matches (Cherry & Imwinkelried, 2006).
Benefits of latest forensic science technology are many and include efficiency of services. But this system is not infallible. For example, the FBI noted that their system missed a fingerprint for Jeremy B. Jones, a serial killer, three times after he was arrested. Thus, while digital evidence is valuable, issues such as what is analyzed and how it is analyzed must be considered to ensure accuracy of findings (Cherry & Imwinkelried, 2006).
With new technology, come new concerns related to abilities. Cyber crime for example is an advent of digital technology (Grabosky, 2007). Grabosky stated that changes in digital technology have led to changes in the way people communicate and live. Criminal activities that were not possible in the past are common place today. For example, today, digital technology is worldwide and this wires countries together and provides a framework that allows for crime to take place on a wider scale. Even young adults or juveniles have the capacity to commit massive crimes. The ordinary criminal and the terrorist both have greater ability to communicate and commit crimes. Cyber crimes are crimes that take place with the computer, either as an instrument of the crime, the target of the crime, or when it is incidental to the crime. These crimes include hacking, spam, phishing, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, encryptions, malicious codes, and robots. Identities are misused, financial markets are manipulated falsely, and industrial espionage can flourish. Cyberterrorism is a prominent issue today. Technology can be used to acquire source intelligence and communicate propaganda and psychological warfare. Technology can be used for recruitment and fund raising of terrorists as well as any individual. Prosecutors of cybercrime have different roles depending on the country involved. Criminal law prohibits unauthorized access to a computer system, unauthorized destruction or modification of data, interfering or impeding with lawful use of a computer, and unauthorized interception of computer-mediate communications (Grabosky, 2007, p. 208). Despite these problems, police, investigators, and courts today use forensic science as a main component of their work (Giles, 2003). Police use forensic science to deal with issues such as family conflict, arrests, and more. Computer science enhances the ability to identify problems and solutions.
Conclusion
A history of forensic science points out that early methods of fingerprinting and lie detector information were limited if reliable. Today, technology has increased the ability of forensic science to enhance investigations and lead to convictions. Despite these advantages, modern DNA evidence is not without possible error and advances in technology present with new crimes and problems. However, these problems are within a context that allows for the generation of related solutions. Police, investigators, and courts use forensic science to deal with issues such as family conflict, crime, arrests, and more. Computer science enhances the ability to identify problems and solutions. Thus, forensic science today presents with technological solutions that outweigh its disadvantages.