Dna Who Control The Evidence

DNA Truth and Fallacies

1

The History of DNA Forensics-Who Controls the Evidence By David G. CABAN, MBA

History of DNA Forensics DNA technology is a system that was developed as in the early 19th Century. Gregor Michael developed the science of inherited characteristics in history of inherited characteristics of pea plants in 1866 (Naughton, 2005). The concept of inherited characteristics is the basis of DNA technology, and it was first utilized in the criminal justice system in the mid 1980’s. DNA Technology won its first conviction in the United States in 1987 (Naughton, 2005). DNA, which is abbreviated for deoxyribonucleic acid that consist of two chains of nucleotides bonded together in a double helix. This scientific evidence is responsible for determine the inherit characteristic of each living organism (Naughton, 2005). Historically, DNA can be extracted reliably from clean blood specimen, and-or other metabolic fluids, such as, semen and other biological fluids that can be link to its original source (Naughton, 20005). For example, bloodstains found on a shirt can be trace to the individual or perpetrator. The problematic issue with DNA evidence is that it can be manipulated to win a conviction, also, keeping innocent people behind bars for the sake of a political agenda (Naughton, 2005). History of DNA Technology

DNA Truth and Fallacies

2

The first conviction used by DNA evidence occurred in Portland, Oregon in 1987. During the early phases of DNA evidence jurors were confused as to the process of DNA evidence linking to the defendant. DNA evidence for the past twenty-five (25) years was not only utilized to convict people of crime, but also, innocent people wrongfully convicted of crimes were free based on DNA evidence. Furthermore, within the past 25 years over 10 death row inmates in the United States have been exonerated from their conviction based on DNA evidence. The faulty evidence utilized in the past have been eyewitness testimony, however, through DNA Technology contradicted eyewitness account. As a result, several individuals’ serving either lengthy prison terms and on death row was exonerated, because DNA analysis proved their innocence (Brown, 2005, p. 1588). An English scientist named Alec J. Jeffreys first introduced DNA analysis in 1985. The late 1980’s DNA finally used evidence by both law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). DNA consists of comparing selected segments of molecules from different sources. Because of the fact, DNA molecules are comprise of billions of segments, however, only a small portion of the individual is extracted to determine someone’s fate. The genomic strand is a DNA strand that makes up the individual structure. The DNA strand can also be duplicated, For example, to duplicate DNA from plants and animals for scientific research (Sunderland, West, Waterworth and Bray, 2005). A duplication of cells for scientific study may not present any problem, however, if needed

DNA Truth and Fallacies

3

to manipulate scientific evidence can be probable (Sunderland, West, Waterworth, and Bray, 2005). In relation to prisoners and lifers pleading his or her innocence DNA forensic can benefit. DNA technology is used to compare evidence, for example, semen samples of rape victims are analyzed with the accursed perpetrator blood sample. As a result, the defendant is deemed innocent (Naughton, 2005). Quite the contrary, DNA evidence can also be distorted by manipulating scientific evidence that misrepresent the guilt of the defendant (Naughton, 2005). Manipulating state’s evidence is artistic, which the state attorney could potentially used to win a conviction (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). For example, in some capital punishment cases lifers charged for sex crimes were unable to pursue DNA technology to prove their innocence (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). Because of the fact, DNA evidence collected from the crime scene had been either destroyed or discarded (Risinger, 2007). As a result, people wrongfully accused of crimes became subject for the penal system. The defendant either had too accepted the consequences of a crime that neither he nor she committed. Furthermore continuing the protest of their innocence (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). The concept of releasing inmate from the prison system is not based on convincing the system your innocent, but rather, your outcome in the future, which would determine becoming eligible for parole (Naughton, 2005). However, the penal system, as well as, it staffers are clinging to the courts decision or verdict (Naughton, 2005). Therefore, if a prisoner or lifer is innocent they must admit to the crime he or she is committed, which is one of the penal guideline for either early release or parole (Naughton, 2005). In addition, prisoners or lifers knowingly of their innocents are

DNA Truth and Fallacies

4

included within the prisons guidelines or booklet that advises prisoners of their terms and conditions of their prison sentence and release plans (Naughton, 2005). Regardless, of whether or not the prisoner or lifer is innocent he or she must admit to the crime they are committed. One of the specific term and conditions for prisoners is to refrain from protesting his or her innocence (Naughton, 2005). However, must accept courts decision, which most prisoners refute. Some researchers believe it is a government’s betrayal against society, because it is considered to be unconstitutional (Naughton, 2005). It is unconstitutional for the courts to allow the state or prosecution to fraudulently manipulate state’s evidence, such as, DNA samples gathered from both the defendant and the crime scene (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). The rationale or hypothesis for the prosecution to manipulate evidence is to win a conviction (Naughton, 2005). In addition, through the use of the mass media convince the public that DNA evidence does work, without the public especially the juror know how DNA evidence can be manipulated (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). Although, some staff members might be persuaded or convince of the inmates innocents through DNA faulty evidence the rules set forth by the penal system accept the contrary (Naughton, 2005). This has similarity to the differential association theory that describes the differences between upper and lower social classes’ struggles within society. Upper society people have the political power to create, control and enforce laws designed to target the lower social classes within society (Cole, 2007).

Faulty evidence

DNA Truth and Fallacies

5

Prisoner and lifer admitting his or her guilt is a good indicator to qualify for early release or parole, because they met the guidelines of the prison system (Coker, 2003). However, those who protest their innocent the end would serve longer prison sentence, in contrast, to fellow prisoners and lifers admitting the guilt (Coker, 2003). For example, in the case of Stephen Downing convicted for a crime he did not commit. However, both the prison institution and the parole board insist in admitting to a crime (Coker, 2003). Stephen Downing persisted with his innocence and refused in admitting to the parole board of a crime he did not commit (Coker, 2003). As a result, Stephen Downing spent twenty-seven (27) years incarcerated, and the prison staff even admitted to his innocence. The parole deal operates on a partial note for prisoners and lifers, such as, Stephen Downing to admit their conviction. Inmates admitting to a crime that they are committed would be eligible for early release from the prison system (Coker, 2003). Cognitive distortion is the concept that prison psychologist impugns in the minds of both prisoners and lifers, which is to admit to their crime even if they did not commit it (Coker, 2003). As a result, prisoners and lifers can potentially be release with a reduction risk of re-offending (Coker, 2003). If the prisoner or lifer who is innocent refuses to admit to the crime he or she is committed could experience discomfort, because of the inhumane treatment they experience while incarcerated (Butler & Morgan, 2007; Coker, 2003). Furthermore, it could potentially harm the prisoner and lifers who are innocent, which affects their cognitive process (Coker, 2003). It could potentially develop anger, pain, depression and sadness, which posses’ negative affects to the individual (Butler & Moran, 2007).

DNA Truth and Fallacies

6

The concept of cognitive distortion produces negative feeling, thought, which are associated with anxiety, which is link to the rise of fight and-or flight tendencies (Butler & Moran, 2007). The flight is the action of fear within the individual, which chooses not to confront the problem, but rather, resist the problem. In contrast, to anger which give rise to individual having been coerce by the prison system of admitting to a crime they may have not committed (Butler & Moran, 2007). And as a result, the prisoner and lifer could potentially retaliate against the system, as well as, society once release (Butler & Moran, 2007). During the early stages of prisoners and lifers enter the process of admitting to a crime he or she is innocent and not have committed, but would be committed serving a prison sentence the inmate would have little influence, which is beyond any appraisal and aversive. Some prisoners and lifers may retaliate by violent means during the early phase of their incarceration without deliberation or forethought, because of the rush anger and frustration of becoming confine to an environment by of no choice (Butler & Moran, 2007). The latter phase prisoners and lifers would become adaptable o their new environment, because cognitive appraisal may go operative and substantially influence his or her emotional reaction after the initial automatic responses that occurred during the early stages of incarceration (Butler & Moran, 2007; Coker, 2003). Furthermore, prisoners and lifers would experience the hardship of both incarceration and lack of freedom, but would inadvertently resist the thoughts of their horrific experience, and would perhaps try to control the arousal of bitter feeling and negative conduct (Butler & Moran, 2007).

DNA Truth and Fallacies

7

In regards to post execution there have been several cases involving for each state to pass a law, which would allow for post DNA testing (Risinger, 2007). For example, in the State of Virginia Roger Coleman an inmate convicted of crime, but claiming. After his execution the law in the State of Virginia allowed the exhumation of his body for post DNA examination (Risinger, 2007, p. 765). Roger Coleman was executed in 1992; however, the defense believed that it was based on weak evidence against him (Risinger, 2007). DNA examination was performed, and revealed that Roger Coleman was guilty for the crime he was convicted and executed (Risinger, 2007, p. 765). The concept of the State of Virginia allowing post DNA examination was not only to substantiate the fact of Roger Coleman guilt, but also rather, set a precedent for post DNA examination (Risinger, 2007). United States Congress often rationalized as to whether or not it is unconstitutional to execute someone if DNA examination would later prove his or her innocence (Risinger, 2007). The prosecution of innocent individual has been perceived from two different perspectives: First, if someone was convicted wrongfully of a crime demonstrated to society that it would only control crime (Risinger, 2007). Secondly, to convict an innocent individual would obviously suggest a problem within the criminal justice system, which is in need for revisioning (Risinger, 2007). Therefore, it becomes the duty of the criminal justice system to protect the innocents (Risinger, 2007). Individual’s wrongfully accused of crimes based on faulty evidence have to wait years for an appeal, which allows for DNA evidence to substantiate their innocence (Risinger, 2007). Quite the contrary, DNA evidence can potentially be manipulated for

DNA Truth and Fallacies

8

the state attorney to win a conviction, as well as, keeping innocent people behind bars (Naughton, 2005). There have been innumerous prisoners who are innocent but are charged and serving lengthy prison terms for crimes they did not commit. Instead, of pursuing seeking justice for those wrongfully accused the system would rather report that a significance amount of prison population is innocent (Risinger, 2007). It proves that the criminal justice system has flaws for two reason, first, the department of correction would admit on a smaller scale of the prison population are wrongfully convicted. Secondly, reality will demonstrate the contrary, because it would demonstrate higher prison population rates are in fact innocent (Risinger, 2007). DNA Technology performed during the appellate cases for the past 25 years had exonerated more than a dozen individuals (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005; Risinger, 2007). DNA Technology is also known as DNA Fingerprinting. DNA Technology not only convicted and exonerated several individuals it also reduced sentencing on convicted people. For example, a prisoner charged for a federal crime would be proven innocent, however, would be charged for am lessor crime, which reduces sentencing (Risinger, 2007). DNA Evidence and its Fallacies DNA Technology is not generally perceived as a major role in the generation of the inequitable within the criminal justice system, but rather, a newer process within the criminal justice system (Cole, 2007). The agenda is not so much of releasing innocent prisoners and lifers from the system, but rather, the court convincing the jurors the guilt of the defendant (Cole, 2007; Garrett, 2007). For example, a prisoner and lifer

DNA Truth and Fallacies

9

incarcerated for a conviction to a crime they did not commit, however, the prisons believing the state forensic technician fabrication of blood evidence. As a result, the state attorney wins a conviction (Garrett, 2007). According to Cole (2007), purported a framework, which analyzes the input of technology, which is a new concept of inequality within the criminal justice system (p. 96). There are two basic views of DNA technology: First, is the pessimistic view that holds the concept how new technology would always harness to benefit both the powerful, and the wealthy (Cole, 2007). For example, the wealthy and powerful elements of the court system, corporation, political and wealthy elites manipulating crime by fabricating evidence to convince a jury of the defense guilt (Cole, 2007). As a result, the innocence is incarcerated for a crime they did not commit (Cole, 2007). Once an individual is incarcerated the prisoners they may be convince of a crime neither he nor she ever committed (Naughton, 2006). If they refute it could result of no parole or earlier release opportunity, because the prison system is always convince of the courts decision (Naughton, 2006). Furthermore, DNA Technology is simply a concept, which creates the ideology for social control (Cole, 2007). Nowadays, the media convinces the public how DNA evidence is the key to convict the guilty without explaining true scientific facts of DNA (Liu & Martin, 2006). For example, DNA analysis examines 13 location of the genomic strand for repeating sequences of DNA, as well as, mitochondria DNA typing (Murphy, 2007). According to Murphy (2007) purported, the traditional forensic science in the criminal justice system creates any new techniques without hesitation, because of the

DNA Truth and Fallacies

10

fact; it aims to win a conviction (Murphy, 2007). For example, voice exemplars, hair fiber, teeth marks and fingerprints were intended to target the defendant (Murphy, 2007). Also, scientific evidence can be debunk if its misused to commit fraudulent acts, especially, if policing along with the court system either intentionally or unintentionally tried to convince a court to render a guilty plea against the defendant (Cole, 2007, p. 724). Secondly, are the optimistic view holds that DNA technology has the power to level the playing field, such as, recent developments how DNA can exonerate convicts or prevent primary suspects from conviction (p. 96). Exonerating convicts from the penal system is not uncommon, however, exonerating any prisoner and-or lifer from the penal system can be difficult (Cole, 2007, p. 96). For example, for a prisoner or lifer fighting for his or her innocence may take several years, but if the inmate pleas guilty can potentially qualify for either early release or parole (Cole, 2007). DNA evidence is not all negative it does have positive results, for example, a prisoner and lifer claiming his or her innocence can rely on DNA evidence to exonerate his or her conviction (Hansen, 2006). In the case of Paul Gregory House who was convicted for murder and was sentence to death for a murder, which in fact, did not commit (Hansen, 2006). However, during the trial of Paul House counsel during his trial did not had the technology to gather DNA evidence, which could had proven his innocence (Hansen, 2006). Instead, Paul House was found guilty of his murder trial and convicted. He spent several years incarcerated sitting on death row, until DNA evidence was finally admitted and approved in federal court (Hansen, 2006).

DNA Truth and Fallacies

11

Paul House attorney filed several appeals, but each appeal was denied. Until DNA evidence became available his last appeal was finally granted, which later proved that he was innocent of a murder, which he was convicted (Hansen, 2006). The problematic-issue with DNA evidence is not many prisoners and lifers have the opportunity to pursue (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). Because of the fact, the expense of attorney and court fees for an appeal just to claim his or her innocence can be costly (Hansen, 2006). In addition, if the lower court is to be found in error in sentencing an individual to serve a lengthy prison sentence and-or death penalty could potentially be confronted with severe repercussion (Cole, 2007). Therefore, the prosecution could potentially thwart any evidence that would prove the prisoner and-or lifer claim of innocence by manipulating DNA evidence (Cole, 2007; Gaaber, 2004, p. 458; Naughton, 2005; Walker, 2003p. 666-667). In relation to policing and targeting crime policing through governmental influences tend to pay little attention to credible evidence, which could prove the innocents of certain societies (Gaaber, 2004). Instead, policing was advised to target society, which stems the probability for conviction (Gaaber, 2004). The lack of evidence is what policing would rather focus, because it already been determined by the U.S. congress that African American and other minority groups residing within the lower social-economic environment are more aggressive and violent people (Gaaber, 2004; Walker, 2003). Therefore, lack of credible evidence stems the likelihood of arrest, perhaps conviction and a lengthy prison sentence (Gaaber, 2004). DNA evidence if use correctly can determine the innocence of certain inmates, who in fact, are innocent. However, through political means influences the influential

DNA Truth and Fallacies

12

prejudicial existing within society, which prolongs prison sentencing and opportunity for appeals (Walker, 2003). Furthermore, disallowing the equitable opportunity to prevent DNA evidence, this could prove the defendants innocence (Naughton, 2005). Instead, the court would allow the state prosecution of presenting DNA evidence to win a conviction against society (Franceschet, 2004; Hess, 2004; Vernon, 2003). And, as a result, it would disallow the defense to prove his or her innocence through DNA evidence. Because of the fact, the court and its jury influence by the state prosecution version of DNA evidence as credible as the defense (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005).

Conclusion DNA evidence is not as problematic as it may seem, because of the fact it has exonerated several prisoners and death row inmates. Furthermore, it has linked defendants to the crime scene, but prior to DNA Technology it would have been difficult linking criminal or defendants to the crime scene. It had also proven to the criminal justice community that some prisoners and death row inmates were convicted on faulty evidence. Faulty evidence was later determined as weak evidence to win a conviction, for example, eyewitness accounts, poor police and court investigation. However, DNA Technology shifted the perspective of the criminal justice community, because DNA provided solid scientific evidence. Whereas, police and court investigation relied on eyewitness accounts, finger prints in the crime scene, and other witnesses benefiting the criminal justice system.

DNA Truth and Fallacies

13

Furthermore, prior to DNA technology policing and the court system relied on the traditional fingerprint card, which only provided certain amount of information. The certain information provided was linking any potential suspect to the crime scene, also, the potential suspect’s background and criminal history, which still provided limited information. For example, several death row inmates were convicted on rape and murder charges, because of eyewitness accounts and the individual’s background that was associated to the victim. But, through DNA evidence, which later proved that the bloodstain did NOT match the blood sample of the prisoner, nor were the previous eyewitness, accounts accurate. Furthermore, it has lead to other investigation, which later prove who actually committed the offense. An English Scientist named Alec J. Jeffreys discovered DNA Technology. It was originally used to study the genetic make up of pea plants, but little was known of its future outcome. In other words, the concept of studying genetic make of a pea plant could also be utilized in the genetic make up of humans. For example, DNA consists of billion of molecules, however, only a small portion is required to link a suspect to a crime scene. In the past 25 years DNA Technology has brought famed to the criminal justice community. It has provided hope to society by means that was previously unimagined. However, DNA Technology can be manipulated, because of the fact; it can be distorted through scientific means to win a conviction. In the courtroom there are other factors involved, which can be favorable to both prosecution and the defense. In the case of O.J Simpson DNA evidence was utilized to prove his innocence, however, physical evidence was tampered during his trial. As a result, the evidence that could have been used against O.J. Simpson was later inadmissible in court. This lead to a wide range of speculation and

DNA Truth and Fallacies

14

theories, which suggested DNA technology would have discovered without the tampering of evidence. References Butler, B., Moran, G. (2007). The Role of Death Qualification and Needs for Cognition in Venirepresents’ Evaluation of Expert Scientific Testimony in Capital Trials. Behavriol Science and the Law, Vol. 25, p. 561.571. Coker, D. (2003). Addressing the real world of racial injustice in the criminal justice system. The journal on criminal law and criminology, Vol. 93, No. 4. Cole, S.A. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Science and Public Policing, Vol. 34(2), p. 95-107. Coyne, S.M. & Archer, J., (2005). Social Development. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 14 (2), 324-328. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eckler, R (2006). I was Lindsay Lohan’s Tutor, 120 (11), 44-44 Franceschet, A. (2004). The Rule of Law, Inequality, and the international Criminal Court. Alternative Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, Issue 1, p. 23-42. Gaber, T. (2004). Inflammatory Rhetoric on Racial Profiling Can Undermine Police Service. Department of Criminology, Vol. 46, Issue 4, pg. 457-463. Gaarder, E., Rodriguez, N., Zatz, M.S. (2004). Crimes, Liars, and Manipulators: Probation Officers Views of Girls, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 547-576. Hansen, M. (2006). Doubt and DNA. ABA Journal, Vol. 92(9), p. 14-15. Hess, B. (2004). Im/Pplausible Deniability: Racism Conceptual Double Bind. Social Identity, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 9-29. Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and design (8th. Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson & Merrill Prentice-Hall. Liu, Y., Martin, K. (2006). Sliding into Home: Facilitated p53 search for targets by the basin DNA binding domain. Cell Death and Differentiation, Vol. 13, p. 881-884.

DNA Truth and Fallacies

15

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (2nd. Ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. Naughton, M. (2005). Why the failure of the prison services and the parole board to acknowledge wrongful imprisonment is untenable. The Harvard Journal, Vol, 44, No. 11, pp. 1-11. Neuman, W.L. (2003). Science and research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon. Risinger, D.M. (2007). Innocents Convicted: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate. A Journal of criminal law & Criminology, Vol. 97, No. 3, p. 767-806. Sunshine, J., Tyler, T.R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law and Society Review, Vol. 37, No. 3. Walker, B.A. (2003). The Color of Crime: The Case Against Race-Based Suspect Descriptions, Vol. 103-662, p. 662-688.