DNA

Human Deoxyribonucleic Acid, otherwise known as DNA, is a unique pattern in the genotype of every individual. DNA testing in the United States Justice System is now a more accurate method of determining guilt and, just recently, deciding who is innocent of a criminal act. Before the scientific development of DNA test, which is also referred to as a DNA fingerprinting, came to the forefront, the most commonly used and accurate way of identifying the guilty from the innocent was eyewitness testimony (Williams, 1; Boemer, 2).

There is a serious problem with relying on eyewitness testimony. Events such as mistaken identity and the rush of adrenaline have caused witnesses to say or see events in a tainted matter. This is the cause of many convicted felons being falsely accused. Relying on the human mind of a victim can create a bias, especially if the victim has a background of bias against a particular group of people or class. DNA is the one source that sets people apart. According to the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, "policy makers, criminal investigators, and legal professionals have been able to depict a series of benefits already derived or potentially derivable from the increasingly routine and inexpensive use of this technology and its expanding applications. These benefits include: the potential to make speedy and robust suspected offender identifications through automated profile comparisons in centralized criminal justice databases; the ability to confidently eliminate innocent suspects from investigations; the increased likelihood of generating reliable and persuasive evidence for use in court; a reduction in the cost of many investigations; the likely deterrent effect of DNA data basing on potential criminal offenders; and a possible increase in public confidence in policing and in the wider judicial process (Kreimer, 2; Pudlow, 2; Frank Lee Smith, 1 )."

The types of cases that can be found in the first category are those in which biological material was collected and is still in existence. An example of such a case is as follows: The petitioner is convicted of raping a sexually inactive child. Following the rape, vaginal swabs are taken and preserved as evidence. If the DNA test does not prove the petitioner to be a positive match, such results would indicate innocence. Additionally, in cases such as rape, biological material of the victim is also present on the swab, which at the time of testing would insure that the correct sample is being tested. In a case such as described above, the victim’s age and sexual inactivity would virtually guarantee that the swab contains only the biological material that is linked to the crime. (Kreimer, 3; Reno, 2)

The second category of cases includes those in which DNA evidence was collected and is still in existence. The distinguishing feature of this category from the first is that even though the DNA is tested or retested and would support a petitioner’s claim to innocence, some may disagree that the results of the testing rule out the possibility of guilt or create a reasonable doubt about guilt of the petitioner in a given case. Kreimer provides an example of such circumstances. The petitioner is convicted of a homicide. The prosecution argued in closing that blood on a shirt found at petitioner’s home came from the victim Standard blood typing had shown a match between the sample and the victim’s blood. DNA testing that would exclude the victim as the source of blood found on the petitioner’s shirt may be helpful but would not prove that he was not guilty of the crime (Kreimer, 3; Reno, 2).

DNA testing has successfully exonerated over 100 wrongfully convicted people. This number includes people that were on death row, which means the United States would have continued to execute innocent prisoners without this life saving technology. The number of people that will be and have been saved by DNA testing will continue to increase. People’s lives are far more valuable than the money or the time it will take to conduct past, present and future tests. Many prosecutors around the world have decided to adopt the standards of The National Institute of Justice Commission, even without state legislation requirements (Borteck, 2). District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, in Orange County, California, has even gone as far as to invite California prisoners to submit applications for forensic testing if they believe DNA testing could exonerate them. District Attorney Rackauckas stated, "If there's anybody who's been wrongfully imprisoned, and is sitting there in prison, and his or her case could be proven innocent, it's worth this entire project (Borteck, 9).