DNA in the Criminal Justice System
DNA is the main affective component of genetic makeup in biological species (Fraser, 2020). As such, DNA evidence can uniquely identify individuals. The legal system utilises this form of evidence to secure convictions in criminal trials in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America. As such, this essay will argue that DNA evidence allows for more accurate convictions with minimal uncertainty in the justice system, especially when there are only small amounts of evidence available, to secure a conviction. However, in using DNA evidence to secure a conviction, there is still an ambivalence due to human error involved in the collection and analysis as well as the lack of certainty associated with this method used in the judicial system.
DNA evidence is beneficial in convicting individuals because of the accuracy and ease of identifying the perpetrator, as compared to other forms of investigative methods. For instance, between DNA evidence and fingerprinting, the former achieved the higher success of pinpointing the perpetrators and apprehending them (Roman et al, 2008). As such, it allows for efficiency in the judicial process. According to Kitamura, ‘short tandem repeat analysis’ is a means to discern the individual’s identity using DNA evidence with a significant likelihood of being correct, even amongst extremely similar groups of people (2019). This implies that distinguishing the suspect from other members of the community using DNA proof could expedite justice being accomplished in a reliable manner. Furthermore, Bolden (2011) indicates that DNA testing is perceived to be the highest form of attestation. It provides an avenue in which the legal system can entrust the task of providing consistently accurate and correct convictions. In this way, the legal system may conserve sparse resources and benefit from the costs that are saved by DNA attestation.. Thus, DNA documentation is advantageous as it provides ease and accuracy to solve usually complex cases. It allows for finite materials to be more efficiently used and concentrates on areas that require particular attention. Overall, it makes the conviction safer and easier through more convenient means.
In contrast, DNA evidence, albeit accurate and cost-effective, presents an ambiguity created by human error. Professional interpretation of evidence serves to examine the evidence presented in relation to the crime that is being examined by the court. Shaer (2016) recounts how there was a consistent misconceived analysis of evidence by the Houston police technicians. Therefore, expert analysis of the DNA proof in question may be inaccurate and flawed. Ultimately, it resulted in the exoneration of the wrongfully accused after four years in jail. This leads to an unfair trial. Or even more dangerously, a wrongful conviction. Specialist review is allowed as proof of certainty and verification in section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2017). This allows for the court to consider the statements of the professionals in their field. This presupposes the concept of providing a solid platform to convict through an expert, but without accounting for bias and human error. Murphy (2019) stated that over 150 people were absolved and released from American prisons in 2018. With respect to this, a notable factor was the erroneous forensic analysis given by the professionals. Similarly, O'Brien confesses that professional impressions are exaggerated resulting in issues (Murphy, 2019). Furthermore, Garrett (2011) emphasised that analysts who are untrained or unconsciously biased could cause a miscarriage of justice when providing inaccurate opinions about the accused. As such, the forensic experts may present incorrect and misleading testimony. Although scientific attestation is usually reliable, an incorrect elucidation could result in a false conviction. Hence, when the professional interpretation of the data of the DNA evidence is used in court, a sound conviction may not be ascertained due to the erroneous nature humans contribute.
In situations where expert testimony is not required, DNA evidence is highly effective in obtaining an accurate judgment. DNA evidence could be useful in acquiring a conviction when there are small amounts of evidence available and other means of investigation are not possible. Butler (2015) suggested that there is immense sensitivity in examining DNA substances due to the method called ‘polymerase chain reaction’. In addition, he states that considering the means by which the evidence is tested, answers can be provided even with the most minute material available. This enforces the notion that DNA evidence is more advanced in attaining justice, even when it may not be substantial enough for traditional legal procedures to ascertain a definite result. Gill supports this concept stating that identifying minuscule quantities of DNA is achievable, given a few cells (2017). This implies that there is a significant use for DNA evidence in securing a conviction in the legal system. Criminals with more elaborate plans may attempt to take more precautions and leave little trace of their presence at the crime scene. This results in less evidence to identify the perpetrator with absolute certainty. However, with the advancement of technology, analysis can be conducted on matters that would not be normally visible (Bazilchuk, 2016). Additionally, there are more ‘quality assurance measures’ in place with DNA analysis. There is more exposure in the forensic industry with more forensic institutions in existence amounting to higher standards being observed during the technical processes (Butler, 2015). Therefore, DNA evidence is plausibly a dependable instrument to convict criminals in the legal arena. There are safeguards and standards established to ensure that DNA proof is relatively more reliable, especially with increasingly stringent regulations being observed, allowing justice to be achieved more accurately.
Even though DNA attestation is considerably more reliable with measures in place, DNA could still pose a danger in convicting individuals as it remains fallible. The methods of collection and analysis may be unknowingly flawed. It is stated that DNA examination is never impeccable, and more provisions are needed to ensure a faultless process in every instance (Krimsky & Simoncelli, 2010). This potentially undermines the capacity of the judicial process to ascertain the truth. Smith states that judgments made from the specimen that has had its quality reduced, undermine the legal pillars established in the past (2018). Contamination could occur when the police or forensic analysts first arrive at the scene of the crime or even at the laboratory (Gill, 2017). Additionally, research has found that there are frequent and inaccurate results, which rises from the human involvement in the process. Judicial institutions continue to accept this process, although recognising its imperfection in achieving justice (Garrett, 2011). This could possibly lead to unreliable convictions. Therefore, devoid of an avenue to ascertain total precision of findings without the risk of tainted evidence, any evidence presented has a possibility, however minute, of resulting in an unfair trial occurring. According to Randerson (2008), DNA can move from one surface to other surfaces and stay there for a long duration too. Therefore, it may not function well to provide an informed decision of people’s presence at the crime scene. This may reject the entirety of the judicial system and any form of justice it achieves. The result of an unfair case, as well as inaccurate proof presented, is antithetical to the underlying principles in the legal system, especially if the consequences pertain to life and death as well as the question of liberty. Hence, the contamination of evidence presents itself as an immense obstacle. The plethora of factors that defile evidence preventing DNA attestation will affect the reliability of its use in convictions. The doubts raised by these factors could plausibly be eliminated or reduced by technical improvements in the use of DNA analysis. As such, it may be currently too risky to utilise DNA evidence until further advancements or safeguards can be developed to be confident in obtaining a conviction from it.
In conclusion, DNA evidence is useful due to its reliability in assisting the judicial system in achieving a conviction, with higher standards involved with DNA collection and techniques. It is capable of providing solutions where evidence may seem insignificant as well as allowing for improved efficiency and resources to be utilised in an already strained system where funds are finite. However, DNA proof must still be viewed with precaution since no collection or completely faultless. In addition, more awareness is required to develop a platform that courts can use to consider other forms of evidence. Judicial institutions should view to uphold the defendants' constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Adjustments could be made to enhance the credibility of DNA evidence. Yet, even in its current stage of development, DNA evidence currently still serves a significant purpose in securing convictions in the legal justice system.
Reference List
Brandon Garrett, (2011) Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong Cambridge: Harvard University Press pp. 84-117, 145-177
Peter Gills, (2014) Misleading DNA Evidence: A Guide for Scientists, Judges, and Lawyers San Diego, United States: Elsevier Science & Technology pp. 102-151
John Butler, (2015) The Future of Forensic DNA Analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370(1674), p.20140252. Available at: <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2014.0252>
Martin Smith, (2018) When Does Evidence Suffice for Conviction? Mind, Volume 127, Issue 508, Pages 1211-1216, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzx026 [Last Accessed: 2 April 2020]
John Roman, Shannon Reid, Jay Reid, Aaron Chalfin, William Adams, Carly Knight (2008) ‘The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes’ The Urban Institute Available at: <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222318.pdf>
Crown Prosecution Service UK (2017) Expert Evidence | The Crown Prosecution Service. Available at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/expert-evidence\>
Heather Murphy, The New York Times. (2019). A Leading Cause For Wrongful Convictions: Experts Overstating Forensic Results. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/us/wrongful-convictions-forensic-results.html>
Peter Gill, (2017) How misuse of DNA evidence has led to miscarriages of justice The Justice Gap. Available at: https://www.thejusticegap.com/misuse-dna-evidence-led-miscarriages-justice/
Matthew Shaer, The Atlantic. (2016) The False Promise Of DNA Testing. Available at: <https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/>
James Randerson, The Guardian. (2008) The Case Against The Latest DNA Evidence Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/16/ukcrime.forensicscience1> [Accessed 23 April 2020].
Nancy Bazilchuk, Sciencenorway. (2016). DNA Evidence Is Not Always Foolproof. Available at: <https://sciencenorway.no/crime-dna-forskningno/dna-evidence-is-not-always-foolproof/1438647>
Jim Frasier, (2020). Forensic Science: A Very Short Introduction. (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.47.
Masashi Kitamura, (2019) DNA Typing for Individual Identification. Yakugaku zasshi: Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan 139.5: 725-730.
Sheldon Krimsky, Tania Simoncelli. (2010) Genetic Justice. New York: Columbia University Press
Bolden, K. (2011). Dna fabrication, wake up call: The need to reevaluate the admissibility and reliability of dna evidence. Georgia State University Law Review, 27(2), 409-442.
Human Rights Act 1998, Art. 6. Available at: https://libguides.city.ac.uk/Harvardreferencinglawresources/legislation [Accessed 11th November 2021].
