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
very useful and helpful if there has been no suspect caught yet. It can help eliminate or find a suspect. Police use DNA to try to catch people who they think have committed a crime. People have concerns regarding tissue samples and DNA profiles being stored indefinitely. People worry that the stored information could be used against them, or planted at a crime scene implicating them in a crime they did not commit. If this information gets into the wrong hands, they could plant evidence at a crime scene, or put your DNA in a place to where you may not have ever been.
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
rights.
Not all crimes can be solved with DNA. I’m on the fence whether or not we could effectively solve much more crime by requiring submission to a DNA bank at birth. While, I think it could be partially effective, who’s to say the DNA doesn’t get mixed up, or with all the new technology, how do we know the DNA bank will be secure. Some of the effects the use of DNA evidence can have on the justice system in the future could be the speed at which DNA evidence is tested and gathered. Other advances are making portability an option for the near future so that analysis could take place at the crime scene. Today DNA can be tested and a scientist can tell the gender and race of a suspect from a simple bloodstain. In the future, DNA could possibly tell so much more information, including its origin.
Although there remains different perspectives on the issue of DNA analysis being the most effective tool for law enforcement, most researchers agree on the fact that DNA analysis is effective and helps detectives and law enforcers not only get a lead in a case, but it can also help those who have been wrongly convicted of a crime. There can also be human error, which could affect the gathering or the results of DNA testing. Analysis of DNA is one of the most effective resources there is.