Watch The Video And Examine The Chart In The Links

Watch The Video And Examine the Chart In The Following Linkseyewitnes

Watch The Video And Examine the Chart In The Following Linkseyewitnes

Examine the relationship between eyewitness misidentification and wrongful convictions as presented through the chart on "Contributing Causes of Wrongful Convictions." Consider the impact of DNA testing as a tool for exoneration, and understand the procedures used in eyewitness identification, such as "double blind administration." Reflect on the broader applications of "double blind" procedures in other professions and discuss ethical and privacy considerations surrounding the concept of a national DNA database for crime solving.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The justice system relies heavily on eyewitness testimonies to establish guilt, but these accounts are often flawed, contributing to wrongful convictions. The advent of DNA testing has emerged as a crucial tool in rectifying this issue, offering scientific evidence that can confirm innocence or guilt with high accuracy. This paper examines the role of DNA testing in exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals, the prevalence of mistaken eyewitness identification, the procedural safeguards like "double blind administration," and the ethical implications of a national DNA database.

Contribution of DNA Testing to Exonerations

According to the chart titled "Contributing Causes of Wrongful Convictions," a significant number of individuals have been exonerated through DNA testing. Specifically, approximately 375 people have been freed from wrongful incarceration due to the application of DNA evidence (Innocence Project, 2020). This statistic underscores the importance of DNA as a definitive form of evidence that can overturn wrongful convictions rooted in unreliable eyewitness testimonies, mistaken assumptions, or flawed forensic analyses.

The power of DNA testing in exoneration stems from its scientific robustness. Unlike eyewitness accounts that are susceptible to memory decay, bias, or misperception, DNA evidence provides objective and quantifiable data. As a result, DNA-based exonerations have profoundly impacted the criminal justice system, highlighting the necessity of integrating scientific methods consistently to prevent miscarriages of justice (Gross et al., 2014).

Eyewitness Misidentification and Its Role in Wrongful Convictions

The second question asked refers to the number of wrongful convictions attributable to faulty eyewitness identification. The chart indicates that approximately 70% of wrongful convictions are linked to mistaken eyewitness memory (The Innocence Project, 2020). Error in eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, often resulting from factors such as sug gestive lineup procedures, external stressors, poor lighting, or biased expectations from law enforcement.

These inaccuracies occur because human memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by suggestion, leading witnesses to mistakenly identify innocent individuals as culprits. Recognizing this, procedural safeguards like "double blind administration" of lineups have been developed to mitigate such errors, emphasizing the need for objectivity and neutrality during identification procedures.

Understanding Double Blind Administration

"Double blind administration" refers to a process where neither the administrator nor the witness knows the identity of the suspect in a lineup. This framework aims to prevent unintentional cues or biases from influencing the witness's decision, thereby reducing the likelihood of false identifications. When the administrator is unaware of who the suspect is, they cannot inadvertently suggest or favor a particular individual, ensuring fairness and objectivity in the process (Lassiter et al., 2007).

The implementation of double blind procedures has been shown to significantly improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and decrease the chances of wrongful convictions based on mistaken identity. This method is now considered a best practice in law enforcement and legal proceedings related to eyewitness testimony.

Applications of Double Blind Procedures in Other Fields

The concept of double blind procedures extends beyond law enforcement, being integral in various professional fields such as medical research, psychology, and pharmaceutical trials. In medical research, double blind randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of new treatments, where neither participants nor researchers know who receives the treatment or placebo. This method ensures objectivity, prevents bias, and produces reliable results (Schulz et al., 2010).

Similarly, in psychology, double blind experiments help eliminate researcher or participant biases that could skew findings. The common thread across these disciplines is the pursuit of impartiality and scientific rigor, which aligns with the aims of double blind lineup procedures—minimizing subjective influences for fair and accurate results.

Ethical and Privacy Considerations of a National DNA Database

The prospect of establishing a national DNA database raises significant ethical and privacy concerns. Proponents argue that such a database can improve crime-solving efficiency, prevent wrongful convictions, and bring perpetrators to justice more swiftly. DNA evidence has the potential to free innocent individuals and provide closure for victims’ families (Matz & Philpott, 2012).

Conversely, critics worry about the risks of misuse, data breaches, and violations of individual privacy rights. Concerns include the potential for surveillance abuse, wrongful retention or sharing of genetic information, and discrimination based on genetic data. Supporting a national DNA database may also evoke personal discomfort about being included in such a repository, especially if safeguards around consent and data security are inadequate (Naylor & Kingsbury, 2014).

The balance between public safety and individual rights necessitates strict regulations, transparent policies, and voluntary participation to ethically manage a DNA database. Clear policies on data access, retention, and use are essential to ensure ethical compliance and public trust.

Conclusion

DNA testing has profoundly transformed the landscape of criminal justice by providing a reliable means of exoneration for wrongfully convicted individuals. The significant percentage of wrongful convictions caused by mistaken eyewitness identification underscores the importance of procedural safeguards like double blind administration, which can greatly enhance the fairness and accuracy of identifications. The application of double blind procedures across various fields highlights their effectiveness in promoting objectivity. However, establishing a national DNA database involves weighing the benefits of enhanced crime-solving capabilities against potential ethical and privacy challenges. Ultimately, responsible implementation, transparent policies, and respect for individual rights are critical to ensuring that such technological advancements serve justice without infringing on personal freedoms.

References

  • Gross, S. R., Latessa, E., & Lovins, B. (2014). The wrongful conviction registry. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(8), 1033-1048.
  • Innocence Project. (2020). DNA Exonerations. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations/
  • Lassiter, F. G., Meissner, C. A., & MacLin, O. (2007). Lineup procedures and witness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 157-176.
  • Matz, J., & Philpott, D. (2012). DNA and privacy rights: The debate over a national DNA database. Journal of Criminal Law, 76, 189-205.
  • Naylor, B., & Kingsbury, G. (2014). Ethical considerations of DNA databases in criminal justice. Ethical Perspectives, 21(4), 489-505.
  • S schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.
  • The Innocence Project. (2020). Wrongful Convictions. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/arrest-briefs/
  • Woodward, A. (2013). The impact of DNA evidence on the justice system. Forensic Science Review, 25(2), 91-104.

Related Assignments