| Subject: DNA |
Author:
Katy Hursey
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:45:47 04/16/04 Fri
DNA
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the fundamental building block for an individual’s entire genetic makeup, our hereditary blueprint passed on to us by our parents. DNA is a component of virtually every cell in the human body. A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person’s life. DNA is a powerful tool because each person’s DNA is different from other individual’s, except for identical twins. The DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in that person’s saliva. DNA is also found in skin tissues, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, semen, and vaginal or rectal cells. Saliva may be found in chewing gum and on cigarette butts, envelopes, and possibly drinking cups. Fingernail scrapings from an assault victim or a broken fingernail left at the scene by the perpetrator may also be useful DNA evidentiary specimens. Even though the sources are multiplying, the use of DNA evidence is currently limited because much of that could be a tested remains un-recovered and un-analyzed. DNA evidence can identify suspects, convict the guilty, and exonerate the innocent. Throughout the Nation, criminal justice professionals are discovering that advancements in DNA technology are breathing new life into old, cold, or unsolved criminal cases. Many people are skeptical of DNA’s power to prove innocence in cases.
One theory that makes people skeptical is that some prosecutors grant that DNA can prove whether someone is associated with a piece of biological evidence, they insist that it is not the same thing as proving whether a defendant committed a crime. Each time we enter a crime scene, we not only potentially leave a trace of evidence behind, but also take evidence away from the scene. Prosecutors say that there are other evidence that are stronger then DNA that can uphold a convection in court. If there are other evidence at the case that says if a person is convicted or not, DNA should not be the winning factor.
Another possible reason that people are skeptical with DNA convicting people or bring life to old cases is depending on how reliable old DNA is. DNA can be found on evidence that is decades old. There is several factors can affect the DNA left at a crime scene, including environmental factors such as: heat, sunlight, moisture, bacteria, and mold. Not all DNA evidence will result in usable DNA. DNA is also a powerful tool because when biological evidence from crime scenes is collected and stored properly, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that may be decades old.
Perhaps some people think that DNA can be tampered with or contaminated so easily that they don’t think that it’s very accurate. DNA can get contaminated in many different ways; one way is DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This happens when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other parts of the face and then touches the area that may contain the DNA to be tested. Each time we enter a crime scene, we not only potentially leave trace evidence behind, but also take evidence away from the scene. So people may think how accurate can DNA is if it can be contaminated so easily.
I would like to understand if DNA is really reliable or not. It interests me that some people think it is great while some thinks it’s not as powerful tool as some people think it is. Is DNA really such a powerful thing that it should determine if some one is innocent or not. Or do people really just like and think that DNA really works and is as powerful as some people say when it’s in their favor. Understanding this concept will help me understand why people think what they do.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 