Should There Be Enough To Secure Dna Evidence
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the establishment of a national index of: (1) DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes, (2) analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes, and (3) analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains.
In addition, it specified several standards for those laboratories that contribute profiles to the national index system, including proficiency testing requirements for DNA analysts and privacy protection standards related to the information in the national index system.
There are many reasons DNA evidence alone should not be enough to secure a conviction. The only thing one can tell conclusively from DNA evidence is that a person matching that DNA profile was at the scene at the time. That should not be enough to secure a conviction as the evidence is still subject to interpretation. Just because one person’s DNA was at the scene of the crime, does not mean they created the actual crime. Someone else could have been there with them or after them and committed the crime. DNA evidence is just one of the many facts to a case that needs to be considered. DNA evidence has resulted in the release of 250 wrongfully convicted prisoners.
DNA evidence can be …show more content…
In order to make sure there is no way a person can fight the obtaining of their DNA, I think a search warrant should be obtained, or the approval of the individual needing to get the DNA. I also think someone who has been arrested for a violent crime should have to submit to a DNA test. Because DNA can be used to establish a defendant’s identity, obtaining it from someone arrested for a crime, could be similar to taking their fingerprints after they have been arrested. I believe gathering DNA as evidence during the arrest or booking process does not violate the fourth amendment
In addition, it specified several standards for those laboratories that contribute profiles to the national index system, including proficiency testing requirements for DNA analysts and privacy protection standards related to the information in the national index system.
There are many reasons DNA evidence alone should not be enough to secure a conviction. The only thing one can tell conclusively from DNA evidence is that a person matching that DNA profile was at the scene at the time. That should not be enough to secure a conviction as the evidence is still subject to interpretation. Just because one person’s DNA was at the scene of the crime, does not mean they created the actual crime. Someone else could have been there with them or after them and committed the crime. DNA evidence is just one of the many facts to a case that needs to be considered. DNA evidence has resulted in the release of 250 wrongfully convicted prisoners.
DNA evidence can be …show more content…
In order to make sure there is no way a person can fight the obtaining of their DNA, I think a search warrant should be obtained, or the approval of the individual needing to get the DNA. I also think someone who has been arrested for a violent crime should have to submit to a DNA test. Because DNA can be used to establish a defendant’s identity, obtaining it from someone arrested for a crime, could be similar to taking their fingerprints after they have been arrested. I believe gathering DNA as evidence during the arrest or booking process does not violate the fourth amendment