The most recent public debate in
the crime scene investigation community is about low-copy number analysis. Lawyers and some law officials argue that
it’s prone to contamination and lack scientific validity since its only partial
DNA. Forensic researchers have to make interpretations and must be re-evaluated
that is why most people do not support it. By embracing this technique, it
could threaten DNA profiling’s reputation as the best evidence forensic science
has as of now. DNA evidence is not
flawless and by making partial profiles okay to convict, makes more room for
errors. Also it goes against people’s
constitutional rights to fair trial. This would be due to the bias that comes
from forensic practitioners since some interpretation comes from this low copy
number analysis of DNA. “Overstepping the line” could cause major problems in
court cases when interpreting the results of this evidence. Although a great advancement in today’s
society, the forensic community needs to further investigate the issues before
there is complete confidence in the results.
I have to agree with the law
enforcement right now, it would be a great improvement if we could convict on
even the smallest forms of DNA, but it must be done in a way that there is no
bias or interpretation. Once science does this, there will be many more
convictions that normally would not be brought forward. The author brings up several educated claims
that made me agree with him.
Gilbert, Natasha. "Dna's Identity Crisis." Nature
464.7287 (2010): 347-8. ProQuest. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment