I find it more than interesting Justice Scalia has dissented. But, anytime there are procedures to be carried out by government, including police departments, it adds to their budget. In the case of DNA testing it is a matter of chain of custody to be then validated by a second or third test before being entered into a data bank. I don't see this as an issue of evidence gathering, so much as reliability and cost.
While Justice Scalia has ruled as he should in concern for the individual, he is also correct in worrying about false arrests and victimization of the data. One has to also question the prudent expense of such evidence. I think fingerprints are still unique. We don't have clones and even if that occurred regularly in the USA, DNA testing would not help.
What this decision does do is validate the legitimacy of the evidence when DNA is collected. This is new confidence in the judicial system that DNA is a reliable indicator as evidence. But, in all honesty, it is duplication where fingerprints serve the same purpose. The difference with fingerprints and DNA is the 'reading' of the evidence. Fingerprint analysis is far less complicated then DNA interpretation. So, here again, there is expense that might not be prudent or necessary.
The judicial system has also exonerated innocent people from crimes they never committed using DNA evidence. I am sure those folks would state it would have been better to be innocent from the beginning rather than far later in the appeals process. Scary stuff actually, to think our judicial system can go this far afield.
Changing technology is always a concern. The acceptance of the telephone over the telegraph was not convincing at first either. The thing about DNA evidence is the matching to the correct person, therefore, there has to be redundancy in the process. DNA has to be matched with fingerprints and extracted on more than one occasion to prove it's accuracy. I mean, the first time through it could be the wrong person if the fingerprints and DNA are removed at the same encounter. The more frequently the test is performed on different occasions the more positive the results and the more reliable the evidence.
There is also the issue of (monozygotic) identical twins. Monozygotic twins have different fingerprints, which is a more than interesting reality. The small space in the womb between the two genetically identical fetus provides enough environmental difference to produce different fingerprints. Given the different fingerprints, there are probably extremely minor differences in genetic fingerprints or DNA, but, whether or not that is always extracted is another question. I am not sure there is research on a large enough scale to actually validate the difference in the two as a consistent measure of individuality.
There is also the concern of manipulation of the crime scene now that DNA is a form of reliable evidence. Will perpetrators actually plan for these occasions? If they do where does that put the defendant if DNA becomes the prime evidence in any case? I still believe fingerprints outweigh DNA. There are definitely cases such as rape where the DNA is most dominate to any other evidence.
Part of the uncertainty that still requires 'old school' evidence is the fact this is suppose to close the gap on doubt about the death sentence. Recently we have noted Governor Kasich, in good conscience, stated he lacked confidence in the death sentence due to flaws within our justice system. To some death penalty advocates, DNA closes that gap. Not really. There are still margins of error to the reality.
Old fashioned evidence gathering and critical analysis of the entire crime has to be employed even with DNA as a basis of evidence gathering. To my way of thinking, it is only another tool in the tool box, but, it is not the do all or end all to solving a crime. If this validation of DNA as a tool truncates the investigative process and prosecutorial process then greater injustice will result and the margin of error in finding innocent persons guilty increases.
DNA is another measure of guilt, however, it cannot be the only measure of guilt. All the pieces have to fit together, not just one, otherwise our judicial system will become a house of cards. So, while this is an interesting 5-4 decision it still has disadvantages in application to crime analysis and prosecution processes.
The cost of obtaining this evidence can be pinned on those arrested, but, that really isn't realistic. I mean DNA evidence should not be used for jay-walking, okay? The brevity of the evidence has to fit the crime.
What this decision does do is validate the legitimacy of the evidence when DNA is collected. This is new confidence in the judicial system that DNA is a reliable indicator as evidence. But, in all honesty, it is duplication where fingerprints serve the same purpose. The difference with fingerprints and DNA is the 'reading' of the evidence. Fingerprint analysis is far less complicated then DNA interpretation. So, here again, there is expense that might not be prudent or necessary.
The judicial system has also exonerated innocent people from crimes they never committed using DNA evidence. I am sure those folks would state it would have been better to be innocent from the beginning rather than far later in the appeals process. Scary stuff actually, to think our judicial system can go this far afield.
Changing technology is always a concern. The acceptance of the telephone over the telegraph was not convincing at first either. The thing about DNA evidence is the matching to the correct person, therefore, there has to be redundancy in the process. DNA has to be matched with fingerprints and extracted on more than one occasion to prove it's accuracy. I mean, the first time through it could be the wrong person if the fingerprints and DNA are removed at the same encounter. The more frequently the test is performed on different occasions the more positive the results and the more reliable the evidence.
There is also the issue of (monozygotic) identical twins. Monozygotic twins have different fingerprints, which is a more than interesting reality. The small space in the womb between the two genetically identical fetus provides enough environmental difference to produce different fingerprints. Given the different fingerprints, there are probably extremely minor differences in genetic fingerprints or DNA, but, whether or not that is always extracted is another question. I am not sure there is research on a large enough scale to actually validate the difference in the two as a consistent measure of individuality.
There is also the concern of manipulation of the crime scene now that DNA is a form of reliable evidence. Will perpetrators actually plan for these occasions? If they do where does that put the defendant if DNA becomes the prime evidence in any case? I still believe fingerprints outweigh DNA. There are definitely cases such as rape where the DNA is most dominate to any other evidence.
Part of the uncertainty that still requires 'old school' evidence is the fact this is suppose to close the gap on doubt about the death sentence. Recently we have noted Governor Kasich, in good conscience, stated he lacked confidence in the death sentence due to flaws within our justice system. To some death penalty advocates, DNA closes that gap. Not really. There are still margins of error to the reality.
Old fashioned evidence gathering and critical analysis of the entire crime has to be employed even with DNA as a basis of evidence gathering. To my way of thinking, it is only another tool in the tool box, but, it is not the do all or end all to solving a crime. If this validation of DNA as a tool truncates the investigative process and prosecutorial process then greater injustice will result and the margin of error in finding innocent persons guilty increases.
DNA is another measure of guilt, however, it cannot be the only measure of guilt. All the pieces have to fit together, not just one, otherwise our judicial system will become a house of cards. So, while this is an interesting 5-4 decision it still has disadvantages in application to crime analysis and prosecution processes.
The cost of obtaining this evidence can be pinned on those arrested, but, that really isn't realistic. I mean DNA evidence should not be used for jay-walking, okay? The brevity of the evidence has to fit the crime.
By Pete Williams and Erin McClam, NBC News
The Supreme Court on Monday (click here) upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.
The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court’s more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.
The five justices in the majority ruled that DNA sampling, after an arrest “for a serious offense” and when officers “bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody,” does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches....
