www.luntacunt.fora.pl

cheapbag214s

DNA and other Forensice Evidence Final
This was a night that would change lives forever, the night that a crime was committed at the end of your own neighborhood. People are screaming, police and ambulances sirens are going off, and you wonder what had happened, but you decide to stay away so that the police can take care of the situation. As police officers try to get the crowd at the scene quieted, the forensic team rapidly writes notes, collect as much evidence as possible from the victim and the scene. They take pictures, and carefully store any evidence that will be used for later testing. From the evidence that the team found, they believe that the young lady had been raped, killed, by either the gun or one of the tools in the tool kit that was found near her body, and then dumped into the dumpster at the end of the street. More police arrive at the scene where there is blood splattered everywhere, there are witnesses all lined up to tell police and the forensic team what they had saw or heard. The officers take notes of the scene, and talk to the "witnesses" that claim that they heard or saw something. Some of the witnesses say that they recall some suspicious activity and were able to give a basic description of who they saw. Two witnesses stated that they saw a person dumping what appeared to be a body into the dumpster around the time of the crime, and gave a detailed description of the person they saw These two people also told the officers and tell the team that if they saw pictures or a line they would be confident that they would be able to pick out the person they saw. The officers spend many long, grueling hours on this case to find out who the perpetrator is; they had photo lineups conducted,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and fingerprint evidence tested. The evidence that was leads the police to think that you are the person they are looking for, so they go to your house and arrest you for the young lady's rape, murder, and concealment. They tell you that they have fingerprints and eyewitness descriptions that link you to the crime; however, you know that they don't have DNA, a type of forensic evidence that, over the years, has become the most reliable evidence than any other kind. You are confident that you can convince a jury that you are innocent through the police's own evidence, because the fingerprints and eyewitnesses are not as reliable as DNA is in the court of law.
The police have reasonable belief that you had committed the crime and decide to arrest and question you about your whereabouts on the night the crime occurred. You start to tell them that you were at home watching, but they don't believe you. You are then moved into a room with five others, told that you are about to be put into a line-up. Little do you know that there is going to be two eyewitnesses choosing out who they believe the perpetrator is, one at a time of course You walk out into the next room, the curtain opens, when it is your turn you step forward so that you the witness can see you more clearly, and then step back for the remaining people. The first witness gives his statement as to who they believe the attacker was, leaves the room, and is put into another room. Once the room is cleared the second witness gets a chance to choose and the process is repeated. The officers come in to get you, along with the others that are in the line-up, they take you personally into another room, and tell you that you are under arrest for the crime that had taken place. You are confused and don't even know how to explain this, because you know that you are innocent. You try to figure out what is going to happen next.
The Witnesses!A main concern in the public's eye is that a convincing eyewitness,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and in this case two eyewitnesses, can convince a jury of a trial that the person they saw is definitely the person that's being accused. This is because "eyewitness identification is one of the most potent and effective tools available to police and prosecutors. It is compelling, and time after time, it convinces juries of the guilt of a defendant. These misidentifications could be due to a flaw among eyewitness, one where they automatically begin to think that they have the correct person because they are going to trial, when they chose you in a lineup. The misidentifications could also be because the witness had seen the person before and the eyewitness just happened to believe that they look familiar, and link them to the crime. One day Faye Treatser was asked to join an investigator at the police station, when she got there she saw a man in another that she had seen before. Faye Treatser told the receptionist, who was telling her directions on how to get to the investigator's room, that the man in the room across from her was the man that had raped her, despite prior line-ups where she discarded him as a suspect almost immediately. This shows how unreliable some eyewitness testimonies could be when dealing with stressful situations where the victim or the victim's family wants closure (Scheck 58-69). Also in the book Actual Innocence, was a study that proved that eyewitnesses are not reliable. On December 19,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], 1974, a documentary film was shown on the local NBC newscast in New York, the documentary film illustrated:
A young woman walks into a hallway. A man lurks in a doorway,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], wearing a hat, leather jacket,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and sneakers. The man bursts from the doorway, grabs the woman's handbag, and runs straight toward the camera,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], full faced. The entire incident lasts twelve seconds. (Scheck 56)
After this was presented a line-up of six people was show to the viewers. The viewers were informed that the "culprit" was either one of the six or was not in the line-up, and asked viewers to call in who they believed he was from the information given. The professor who organized the study stated that of the 2,145 calls accepted, before they closed the line, only 302, or about 14.1 percent, of the callers were actually correct in their judgment, and stated "the results were the same as if the witnesses were merely guessing, since on the basis of chance, we would expect only 14.3 percent identifications of any lineup participants." This shows that nearly 2,000 eyewitnesses could be wrong, and but also shows that 302 eyewitness could be right (Scheck 56). This information, overall however, proves that eyewitnesses are not a reliable source of information to be used to convict people of crimes, but yet jurors continue to put a lot of faith into eyewitness testimonies during a trial.
Eyewitnesses in a "Staged purse snatching"
You are now arrested, and are being told that you're going to jail until the trial date, as you make your way to your cell you wonder "why me?. The trial date finally arrives, and you get try to prove that you did not commit the crime. You hope that you succeed so that you can go back to your dear friends and family. You walk into the courtroom and the defendant's attorney brings up the eyewitnesses, but luckily there is a jury member or two that is not fully convinced. The plantiff's side can see this, so they decide to start talking about the next bit of evidence that they have against you, fingerprints. The plaintiff's attorney begins to explain that there were fingerprints on a hammer that they had found laying near the victim's body on the night that she was killed. They explain that your fingerprints were found on the hammer that was used to kill the young lady by hitting her over the head multiple times. You are stunned and confused as to how your fingerprints could have gotten on the murder weapon. The trial continues and you feel as though you are going to lose unless you can find a reason for the jury to believe that you are innocent.
Fingerprints have been used for more than a century and are thought to be one of the best pieces of evidence in a crime case. There are many advantages and disadvantages of using fingerprints. First off, fingerprints are the only evidence, so far,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], that are believed to be unique to every person, including identical twins. This is due to the ridges,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], which allow us to grasp objects form a complex mix of whorls, arches and loops. Fingerprints are also sometimes the easiest piece of evidence to find, except in cases where there are only partial prints. Fingerprint testing is ninety-eight percent accurate, which is more accurate than eyewitness identifications. Fingerprint examiner Glen Langenburg in the article, "Weighing Fingerprints As Forensic Evidence", discussed the topic of whether fingerprints should be allowed in the courtrooms if they are not 100 percent accurate. Glen Langenburg stated: "Is that the standard, that in order to use evidence in court it must be perfect? I mean the irony is, eyewitness testimony gets in every time. This causes a case to become very complicated because if a fingerprint is not found, we risk the possibility of having to rely on eyewitness testimonies that, as stated before,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], are incorrect at least 50% of the time. Once a fingerprint is found, many steps must be taken to be sure the care of the print stays in excellent condition. There are multiple methods as to how fingerprints are obtained. The first method is a powder that sticks to the oils from the fingers in order to make the fingerprint visible. This method requires very careful treatment due to the possibility of the mold breaking; therefore pictures are taken of the mold to be used on trial. The disadvantage of this method is quiet clear, one small mistake and the entire fingerprint could be destroyed. If the mold is destroyed, only the picture of the print would be available, and the photograph would not be easily tested for a match. Secondly, it is very complicated to determine the age of a fingerprint that was found at the scene. Therefore, defendants often try to explain away evidence that their fingerprints were found at crime scenes by testifying that they were at the scene and left the prints at a time other than the time of a crime" (Nolo). This greatly complicates a trial because the attorneys working the case must figure out multiple ways to prove that the accused was indeed at the scene when the crime took place. Although this may seem easy to some,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], it is not because if there are no eyewitnesses or DNA to be found at a scene and the fingerprints are the only source of evidence found, it is somewhat easy for the accussed to prove that they were not at the scene. The guilty person has a great possibility of being set free if they can make a convincing argument on why their fingerprint was left at the scene. Lastly, fingerprints are not a reliable source of evidence due to them having the ability to be altered. Fingerprints are able to be altered by means of burns, causing the there to be no more fingerprints. Although the burns must go very deep in order to get rid of the fingerprints, criminals do use this technique as well as cutting deep into their fingers in order to hide their identity. This hiding of their identity makes getting matches in the lab very difficult, and if scientists are not positive they are who the police are looking for, the scientists may end up continuing to look for the "actual" criminal. These changes, the immense care, and the time that fingerprints were left at the scene make fingerprints an unreliable source of evidence in the courts.
The Combination of the following patterns in fingerprints make each individual unique:
The first trial is over, you and your attorney's have gotten what you wanted most, a DNA test to prove that you were not the person that raped the young lady. You feel confident because DNA has become the most reliable evidence to have against or for a side in a trial. You go get the DNA testing done, and the tests prove that you are not the person that raped the young lady. You are ecstatic because now you know that you can win your case and prove that you're not the person they are looking for. The second trial starts, and this time, you are able to have a scientist on your side, a DNA analyst. The analyst takes the stand and discusses that the DNA did not match the vaginal swab taken from the young lady that was raped. This stuns the jury, because they were starting to believe that you were actually the one who had committed this heinous crime. The court continues fourth with your attorney giving more information to the jury about how you could not have committed the crime. The trial finally ends, the jury goes and deliberates on what they feel is the truth: are you guilty or are you innocent? The jury finally returns with an answer. The judge reenters the courtroom, tells you that you are free to go. The jury found you innocent and you are acquitted of all the charges You are overjoyed, and so you thank your attorney for everything that they had done to prove your innocence.
DNA, Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is the hereditary information that contains characteristics, from both a person's mother and the father, which makes each person different. DNA is represented by four bases, Adenine (A),[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), and Thymine (T),[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], which are the basic building blocks of DNA in a cell, that repeat throughout the length of the molecule. These bases have a pattern that is very different from one person to another. The DNA in animals is different than that found in bacteria, and the DNA in animals is slightly different depending on the organism. DNA testing is done in a series of six steps in order to isolate DNA from the samples and compare the two samples that were taken (Betsch). This testing of DNA helps forensic scientists, jurors, and judges to figure out whether or not an accused person is actually innocent or guilty, and has been used to even exonerate people from jail after many years.
There are many advantages and disadvantages that help to determine how reliable DNA is, as forensic evidence in the courtroom. The first advantage of DNA testing is that scientists are able to use very little DNA to figure out if there is a match through any one of the two kinds of tests. The two types of DNA testing differ in the amounts of DNA needed from the scene of the crime in order to get an accurate reading of positive match or negative match. The first type is called RFLP and requires a lot of undegraded DNA, while the second type called PCR requires only a small amount of DNA to obtain an accurate reading of a match or not (Riley). The first disadvantage of DNA testing is that scientists need a good amount of undegraded DNA in order to perform the tests on, so they do not get an error or unknown as an answer. If the DNA is degraded, then the care that had been used to preserve the DNA was very faulty, and therefore messed up the structure of the DNA. The second problem with DNA testing is that only the people who the police suspect are guilty will be able to be tested. For this reason, DNA databases have started to be thought about. DNA databases would hold everybody's DNA and scientists would be able to compare everyone's to any sample that needs to find a match. There are many different perspectives on whether these databases would be good. One good thing that would come of it would be that the DNA from everybody would be placed into it and scientists would be able to easily and efficiently find out who the match is to the sample they have been given to test. The database would also help with trials where the defense side requests to have a DNA test ordered. In the case of the people who have been exonerated,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], the DNA showed that they were not the person that police were looking for, if there were databases, these people may have been able to be freed sooner. The exonerated people would have been freed sooner because the scientists may have found a different match then the person in prison. If this were to have happened, then the police would have found the real perpetrator. DNA databases could also help the people who are being accused of crimes today by having the DNA of everybody available. The downfall to the DNA databases is that some people believe that their DNA being in a database is an invasion of privacy. This privacy invasion,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], to some, is too extreme and they feel very uncomfortable giving the government access to their identity. Some people believe that if the government has a DNA database, then they may be convicted of a crime if their DNA just so happens to be found at the crime scene.
DNA over the past decade has become the most reliable and strongest piece of evidence that a case could have in court. DNA testing has become more reliable because it is easier to test then fingerprinting, and because DNA is so unique since only one in about a trillion people would have the same DNA. DNA testing is also the only type of forensic test that is able to be done with very a small amount of evidence collected. Fingerprinting gets difficult to test when there is only a partial print found or if there is a smudged print found. When these types of fingerprints are found, the evidence is very hard to show in court convincingly because of the fact that the fingerprint could have been someone elses, with almost the same fingerprint. Fingerprints also are not very reliable because people could say that they were at the scene at a different time, and state that their print just happens to be there at the scene. DNA, on the other hand, is concrete evidence that a person was at the scene of the crime at the time the police believe. Unlike eyewitnesses, DNA is also very reliable because there is no possibility that DNA could mistake an identity. Eyewitnesses are very prone to being pushed one way while looking at lineups by police or could even see a person and believe that they are the criminal. People in society,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], as well, have a hard time differentiating between people of different races then their own, which causes eyewitnesses of a different race, then the criminal to have a hard time choosing who the criminal is when there is more than one person of that race. This, however, is not true with DNA, because DNA cannot "see" who people are and are not biased towards a certain person or group.
Technology has come a long way, and the outcome has become that DNA testing is the best type of evidence in a trial. This evidence has been used in cases to exonerate people, convict people, and even to save people the trouble of going to jail. Court systems using DNA testing to exonerate people convicted of a heinous crime shows how reliable they believe the test is, even if the prior cases had fingerprints and eyewitnesses as evidence. The court would not want to release a perpetrator that they know committed a crime such as rape or murder. This provides concrete evidence of how reliable DNA testing is, and how unreliable fingerprints and eyewitnesses are. DNA testing is the best evidence that a side in a trial can use because it society is so trusting of it.相关的主题文章：

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.allegraceqbp.fora.pl/anita-will-case-study-of-zyprexa-small-plaid-cephalexin-kidney-delicate-smile-kicks,1/les-hollywood-film-stars-en-approach-sevties-nike,3409.html#3435

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.xanaxnoprescription.fora.pl/forum-testowe,1/trending-magical-eyeshadow-nike-blazer-lerg,4741.html#4771

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.benicarfnmql.fora.pl/when-dinner-base-of-coumadin-drugs-strong-hands-coreg-and-slow-heart-beat-reached-bloody-wrestler,1/silver-sneakers-is-not-for-sissies-nike-blazer-rok,4158.html#4174

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

http://www.guardiansofgrail.fora.pl/tutorials,14/5-global-investment-destinations-spun3-nike-blazer,6813.html#6991

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]