CriminologyJustice: Fingerprint

Tabetha Cooper

In criminal cases, DNA is an effective and accurate evidentiary tool that aids in conclusively convicting the guilty or freeing the innocent. The art of DNA analysis originated in the 1980's and has since become a routine part of all investigations.

Micah's DNA (Photo credit: micahb37)

Since DNA analysis has aided in solving so many cases, it is now mandatory for convicted person to submit a DNA sample for future comparison. Since this endeavor has become successful it is now being debated as to whether a person arrest but not yet convicted should be made to submit a DNA sample. After the sample has been collected it is stored in a database called CODIS where it can be run among other DNA samples found at past crime scenes and stored for use in impending investigations. This wonderful scientific discovery and its wide spread use has raised ethical questions regarding privacy when comes to mandating the not yet convicted to submit a sample of their DNA. Upon understanding what DNA is, its use, and hearing arguments on both sides of this issue, I am sure that you will find mandating arrestee’s to submit a DNA sampling to a useful procedure.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA is the molecule that represents a person's unique genetic makeup. It can be found in any cell with a nucleus and is the same within each cell of a person's body. It has four identifying bases that are sequenced individually for each person (except for identical twins). The bases are Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), and Adenine (A). In 1985, Dr. Alec Jefferys explained how these bases repeat in unique sequences to each individual and how based on these sequences a person paternity, or in the field of criminal justice, involvement in a crime could be determined based upon these sequences. (www.dna.gov)

DNA (Photo credit: Gravitywave)

In an investigation, evidence is collected in an attempt to identify the perpetrator of the crime. Among this evidence can be any number of DNA containing cells. DNA can be found in hair, bone, teeth, fingernails, blood, semen, urine, feces,

sweat, saliva, mucus membranes, skin cells, muscles, organs, and brain cells. As it can easily be seen, with the vast array of places DNA can be found, it is quite impossible to do anything in life and not leave a least a trace amount of it behind. When DNA tested first started in the 1980's it took a large amount of it to get a profile but with the advances in technology within the last twenty-five years all it takes is a very minute amount to get a conclusive DNA profile. After DNA evidence has been analysis it is compared to known suspect samples in a case. If there are no known samples it is ran through a DNA database called Combined DNA Index Systems or CODIS. There, the sample can be compared to known offenders as well as to other crimes that may have the same DNA evidence, linking the two crimes. CODIS is used in many different jurisdictions from local, state, to federal agencies. In the event that no match is immediately made an automatic search will be done weekly. If a DNA match is made during that search, the results will be sent to the agency that submitted the DNA sample for comparison. (www.dna.gov)

English: tSMS DNA sample sequencing: image templates and cleave (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Because of the success with DNA evidence, both in convicting guilty perpetrators and exonerating the innocent who have been sitting in prison for years, most states require that offenders submit a DNA sample upon conviction. According to Berson (2009), courts have continued to uphold the ruling that a convicted person should have to submit a DNA sample. She goes on to explain that the controversy has now targeted arrestees who have not yet been convicted of a crime. DNA is collected from an offender by taking a swab from the inner cheeks of an offender's mouth. It has been debated about whether this is ethical and even constitutional when an offender hasn’t even been convicted of a crime by a jury of his peers. After all isn’t he still protected by the Bill of Rights?

DNA can determine more than merely if a person perpetrated or at the very least was at the scene of a crime. DNA can be used to establish paternity and be used for a number of other medically related things. Due to the ability to determine these other things it raises the question of intrusion upon privacy. It can be argued that mandatory DNA samples go against the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the protection of privacy of person and possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination and the privacy of personal information. (topics.law.cornell.edu).

CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the other hand, as Berson (2009) states, DNA sampling is the same as fingerprinting. When a suspect has been arrest it is part of the booking procedure to fingerprint him. If he is later found innocent he has the option of asking for his fingerprints to be taken off the books. If mandatory DNA sampling was part of the booking process and the suspect was later found guilty he could then ask for the fingerprint and the DNA sample to be removed from the records. Privacy is an issue because so much information can be received from a DNA sample. Medical records could be breached. Most crime laboratories are not concerned with nor equipped to gain medical information. There is no personal information in regards to physical attributes when DNA results are entered into a database.

With the success that has come from mandating convicted offenders to enter their DNA, a person could only infer that mandating arrestee’s to submit a sample of their DNA would only bring that more results. With a complete understanding of what DNA is and how it can be used most people have to agree that the more samples that we can compare DNA evidence to the more criminals we can get off the street. This will make our communities a safer place for future generations. DNA is a biometric feature as with a fingerprint, it can link a particular person to a particular crime due to the characteristics that make

it individual to each person. The difference with DNA evidence is that it can be done more conclusively and with less room for error.

References

Berson, Sarah B. (2009) Debating DNA Collection. Retrieved May 12, 2010, from

http://www.genome.duke.edu/education/seminars/journal-club/documents/Berson2009.pdf

Foster, R.E. (2000). Police Technology. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall

http://www.dna.gov/basics/

http://www.dna.gov/basics/analysishistory/

http://www.dna.gov/basics/biology/

http://www.dna.gov/dna-databases/

http://www.dna.gov/dna-databases/codis

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Forensic Expert – Senior Author

In law enforcement the investigative strategies, tactics, and approaches may make a difference in the detective finding the truth about what happened to a child victim who may have been sexually assaulted. This is important as in child sexual assault investigations (CSAI) the manner in which the incident is examined, evaluated, and analyzed by the detective may determine the ultimate outcome.

English: Fingerprint (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In child sexual assault sometimes a child is sexually assaulted on one occasion. Studies have demonstrated that 50% of the children were touched on one occasion. The reason for the one time sexual touching is children immediately report the incident. The major issue is what happens with the other 50% of a child who is sexually assaulted. Since most perpetrators groom the child, sexually assault the child, then not to be detected, the perpetrator uses coercive and threatening methods to silence the child. Being physically assaulted by the perpetrator is common in child sexual assault children; they go hand in hand.

Children become so fearful that the perpetrator will retaliate against them, or a family member, friends, or an animal, the child may never disclose the sexual assaults. There are many men and women who live with the memory of being sexually assaulted sixty plus years ago. Many people would rather die than tell that at some time in their childhood a man or woman sexually assaulted them.

Many studies have demonstrated the number of women who were sexually assaulted sometime in their childhood is a ratio of 1 out of 3 woman. Men have similar ratios of 1 out 6 were sexually assaulted in their childhood. However, during the past four decades the mental health profession has assisted men in coming forward and the ratio may be higher than studies have demonstrated i.e. the ratio being 1 out of 4 to 5 being sexually assaulted as a child.

Detection- The District Detective will need to identify the "Origin of the Disclosure"

In the “Daly’s Twelve Investigative Characteristics to Finding the Truth” the number 12 characteristic is ‘Detection.’ There is a magnitude of reasons why this characteristic was included. When a crime scene technician (CST) is capable of detecting fingerprints at a crime scene where the perpetrator is unknown, locating, and detecting the fingerprint may bring positive results to the investigation.

The same positive outcome occurs when the child discloses that they were sexually assaulted by a family member or someone else. The disclosure allows a detection process to occur which includes interviewing the child victim, witnesses, and perpetrators. If the detective performs his duties and responsibilities to the law enforcement agencies requirements, he should detect information, facts, and evidence which will assist him in CSAI.

Identification - The District Detective will need to question the child victim and witnesses reference who the perpetrator is to the victim

The fifth characteristic is “Identification” which is included in the twelve characteristics because of a distinct reason. Once a fingerprint is identified it can be classified, then depending on the circumstances the perpetrator may be identified. Sometimes a CST will identify a print, than later put the information into the National Automated Fingerprint Index System (NAFIS).

However, since the perpetrator was never fingerprinted his identity will remain unknown until he applies for a job which requires he be fingerprinted; a background is performed on him; or he is arrested at which time he is fingerprinted. So there are significant situations which may cause his fingerprints to be put in the NAFIS.

Sometimes Hollywood will have a perpetrator they believed committed a crime, but he has never been fingerprinted so there are no fingerprints in the system. During the interrogation of the perpetrator they will place some type of drink in front of the perpetrator with the hope he will leave his fingerprints on the drink item. After he leaves they take possession of the drink and then have it processed for his fingerprints. After the fingerprint is identified, they compare the fingerprints they obtained at the crime scene and in the end, the fingerprints match. They have now identified their perpetrator and can move to have him criminally charged.

In the real world this may happen when a creative and innovative detective employs intelligent and common sensical investigative tactics. Unfortunately, perpetrators are becoming more knowledgeable about law enforcement tactics and refuse to touch anything. Perpetrators for the most part are savvy enough to know what to say, what not to do, and when it is time to ask for an attorney.

When law enforcement interviews the child victim and witnesses there are several questions they will need to ask them. These questions are, but not limited to:

1. How was the perpetrator identified?

2. Who was the person who identified the perpetrator?

3. Did the child victim know the perpetrator?

4. How did the child victim know the perpetrator?

5. Was the perpetrator a relative, stranger, friend, peer, neighbor, and so forth?

6. How did the perpetrator have ‘alone’ time with the child victim to commit the sexual assault?

The answers to these questions and similar ones are critical to the CSAI. Sometimes children have difficulty in explaining who the person was who sexually assaulted them. Further, they may have trouble in identifying what part of their body was touched by the perpetrator. This is a common problem in interviewing young children. If parents would take the time to explain to their child what the name of their body parts is called and what their function is, the child may be capable of providing a detailed account of what happened to them.

Once the child sexual assault has been detected, the type of sexual assault occurred, and the identification of who committed the sexual assault should be enough for a criminal charge to be filed. However, in the criminal justice system perpetrators find freedom too often because the CSAI was not completed thoroughly. Just because the above three facets of the investigation strengthens the case, this should not be a sign that the detective can move on to the next case.

There are other witnesses which should be identified, pursued, and interviewed by the detective. Witnesses who may have information may be counselors, medical personnel, teachers, family, peers, friends, co-workers, and other people who may have information about the parties involved in the allegations.

The detective needs to be complete, thorough, extensive, detailed, logical, intelligent, and most importantly overall competent. The detective’s investigation will present to everyone that he is an individual who has been educated, trained, and experience in conducting CSAI’s. If the detective uses alternative hypothesis and common sense, the avenues of which investigative direction he should take during the CSAI will become apparent, positive, and successful.