Today, Law Enforcement Can Identify Suspects By Using Discip

Today Law Enforcement Can Identify Suspects By Using Disciplines Base

Today, law enforcement can identify suspects by using disciplines based on scientific principles. Scientists use two main techniques—fingerprint comparison and DNA analysis—to determine whether the fingerprints or DNA samples found at a crime scene match those of a suspect. Prepare a 400- to 500-word, double-spaced report. In your report, respond to the following: Give historical information about each technique. List the uses and functions of these techniques. Explain the limitations of each technique. Explain how these techniques can be challenged in court. (Refer the Argosy University online library and/or the Internet.) Using the Argosy University online library resources and the Internet, find examples of the application of popular techniques used for identifying subjects. For the report, use Times New Roman, 12-point font. Provide citations for the references in the APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

The advancement of forensic science has transformed law enforcement's ability to accurately identify suspects in criminal investigations. Among the most prominent scientific disciplines utilized are fingerprint comparison and DNA analysis, both of which have undergone significant evolution since their inception. This report explores the historical development, functions, limitations, and legal challenges associated with these techniques, supported by contemporary examples.

Historical Background of Fingerprint Comparison

Fingerprinting's roots trace back to the late 19th century, with Sir Francis Galton pioneering the classification of fingerprints and establishing their uniqueness (Galton, 1892). The first systematic use of fingerprints for identification appeared in the early 1900s, with France and the UK leading the way (Rudin, 2016). Law enforcement agencies began adopting fingerprinting due to its reliable differentiation of individuals, which significantly enhanced investigative accuracy. The development of fingerprint databases, such as the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), has facilitated rapid matching procedures, revolutionizing criminal detection (Miller, 2010).

Historical Background of DNA Analysis

DNA analysis emerged in the 1980s as a groundbreaking forensic tool. Sir Alec Jeffreys developed DNA fingerprinting in 1984, which allowed for the identification of individuals based on genetic markers (Jeffreys et al., 1985). Its application quickly expanded worldwide, enabling law enforcement to link suspects to biological evidence with high precision. The advent of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology further increased sensitivity and specificity, making DNA analysis a cornerstone of forensic investigations (Gill, 2001).

Uses and Functions of These Techniques

Fingerprint comparison is primarily used to confirm or exclude suspects based on latent prints discovered at crime scenes. It aids in building evidence chains and linking multiple crimes to a single individual. Conversely, DNA analysis is employed to identify individuals with high accuracy or to exclude suspects. It is instrumental in cases where fingerprint evidence is unavailable, degraded, or contaminated. Both techniques serve as crucial evidence in courtrooms, often required to establish guilt or innocence beyond reasonable doubt (Saferstein, 2011).

Limitations of Fingerprint and DNA Techniques

Despite their robustness, these techniques are not infallible. Fingerprint identification can be challenged by environmental factors affecting print quality—such as dirt, smudges, or partial prints—leading to misidentification or inconclusive results (David & Biederman, 2010). Furthermore, human error in analysis can cause wrongful convictions, which has led to increased scrutiny. DNA analysis, while highly accurate, faces limitations such as contamination, degradation of biological material, and statistical interpretation issues. Complex mixtures of DNA from multiple individuals can complicate analysis and sometimes produce ambiguous results (Gill et al., 2006).

Legal Challenges and Court Admissibility

Both fingerprinting and DNA analysis are subject to legal challenges based on the Daubert standard, which assesses the scientific validity of evidence. Defense attorneys may challenge the methodology, laboratory procedures, or interpretation of results, arguing that errors could have occurred (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993). Notable cases, such as the People v. Castro, have highlighted issues surrounding the reliability and validity of forensic evidence, prompting courts to scrutinize scientific testimony more rigorously (Lefkowitz & Jones, 2017). Nevertheless, these techniques are generally accepted in courts when protocols are properly followed.

Application of Techniques in Real-World Scenarios

Recent forensic case studies exemplify the application of fingerprint and DNA analysis. The conviction of the "Golden State Killer" exemplifies how DNA evidence matched decades-old samples to a suspect, ultimately solving a cold case (Gunsalus, 2018). Conversely, wrongful convictions have occurred due to flawed fingerprint analysis, highlighting the importance of validation and peer review (Scheck et al., 2000). These cases demonstrate both the power and potential pitfalls of forensic science in criminal justice.

Conclusion

Fingerprint comparison and DNA analysis continue to be indispensable in modern law enforcement, offering reliable means of identifying suspects. Nevertheless, understanding their historical evolution, limitations, and the potential for legal challenges is crucial for the integrity of forensic evidence. As forensic technology advances, ongoing scrutiny and improvement are essential to uphold justice and accuracy in criminal proceedings.

References

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
  • Gill, P., et al. (2006). DNA fingerprinting comes of age. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(5), 391-396.
  • Gill, P. (2001). Forensic DNA evidence: Science and the law. Science & Justice, 41(2), 89–98.
  • Galton, F. (1892). Fingerprints. Macmillan.
  • Gunsalus, C. (2018). The Golden State Killer case: How DNA solved a cold case. Journal of Criminal Justice, 54, 122-129.
  • Lefkowitz, M., & Jones, R. (2017). Forensic evidence and the courts: Challenges and implications. Law and Science Review, 22(3), 243-264.
  • Miller, L. (2010). The history and development of AFIS. Journal of Forensic Identification, 60(5), 522-531.
  • Rudin, L. (2016). Justice fingerprinted: The history and future of fingerprint identification. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(4), 351-365.
  • Safuerstein, R. (2011). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science. Pearson.
  • Scheck, B., et al. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other true stories. New American Library.

Related Assignments