|
DNA: A Reliable Tool For Both Sides
Since the courts ruled in 1987 ( State of Florida vs. Andrews) that DNA evidence could be introduced as evidence, we have seen case after case where the defendant was found guilty based on this biological phenomenon. There are many examples where "cold" cases, including homicides, sexual assault cases, and many others, were cleared based on the matches of DNA evidence that was not available at the time the crime was committed. Clearly, DNA evidence, commonly referred to "genetic fingerprinting," is arguably the biggest break through that the criminal justice and judicial systems have seen in recent years.
DNA, or for the science savvy crowd Deoxyribonucleic Acid, has become a popular term in court proceedings. From O.J. to Jon Benet to Kobe and basically every high profile case in between, prosecutors have hung their hats on this type evidence and defense attorneys have screamed about its inaccuracies. But despite the championing from one and the outright detest from the other, DNA quite simply is what it is. Arguments of flaws in methodology and interpretations have not gone far in the eyes of the courts. Once a DNA match has been made, it is tough to dispute that the evidence belongs to someone else. Just as it is tough to dispute fingerprint evidence once a match has been made. The advantage, however, is that in genetic fingerprinting no one has yet figured out how to file off the evidence. It may happen one day, but it has not happened yet. For those of you who have criminal ambitions, the general rule is that, if they make the DNA match, you're a cooked goose first and a jailed bird second.
Even though defense attorneys may never become DNA cheerleaders, some are starting to warm up to the use of this science in criminal cases. This change of attitude is based on the fact that as good as DNA evidence is in identifying those who commit crimes, it is equally powerful in eliminating those who did not commit a crime. I am particularly speaking of those who have been convicted unjustly of committing a crime only to have that conviction overturned based on DNA evidence that proves their innocence. Just recently, an inmate was released from the Georgia prisons based on a rape conviction that occurred 17 years ago. While this inmate had been steadfast in his innocence, his only savior was in the fact that the courts were persuaded to test his DNA to DNA evidence recovered from the crime, and it didn't match. Obviously, this inmate was immediately released from prison and is a free man today. Other inmates who were on death row have been exonerated because of a new DNA test that is being performed utilizing evidence still available from their cases. Ask an inmate, who just found out that his life has been spared, what his opinion of DNA evidence is. The defense attorney may not be a cheerleader, but I suspect that these folks would carry the pom-poms.
The science that makes DNA evidence available to our legal system is way above my head. I imagine that some of you share my feeling on this. However, while some of us may not be in line for a scholarship in this field of study, there are some things that we do understand. If DNA evidence puts bad folks in jail and removes innocent people from those same jails, that's all we need to know.
For further information, visit www.voice4victims.com
If you are interested in having Mr. Hall speak at your next club or group meeting, please email contact information to:
SHallBadgeNotes@aol.com
090304
Archives
|
