Should DNA Evidence be Admissable

Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the use of DNA in criminal investigations. It shows how DNA can be helpful and harmful in terms of validating a narrative, how it has been used to exonerate inmates and used to wrongfully convict others. It shows how juries view it as 95% accurate while Israeli scientists show that DNA evidence can be manufactured simply by scientists obtaining access to a DNA profile. It discusses the role that states play in allowing for DNA usage in criminal cases, and it examines how criminal investigators must be concerned about ethical issues when using DNA profiling in their investigation. It concludes that DNA usage in criminal investigation should neither be wholly accepted as flawless nor wholly rejected as useless. Every piece of evidence matters, and with DNA evidence it is no less—the way it is handled and understood is what matters most.
Keywords: DNA evidence, DNA testing, DNA criminal justice, DNA criminal investigation
Introduction
The use of DNA evidence in criminal investigations is still somewhat controversial even though the technology exists for this tool of crime scene analysis to be utilized in every relevant case. Part of the reason it is controversial is that it could, if applied across the board, be used to overturn hundreds of cases in which DNA evidence was not permitted at trial and which could exonerate the defendant, as in the case of Bruce Godschalk, who was convicted of rape in 1986. Years later, DNA evidence was used to exonerate: DNA testing proved that Godschalk was not the rapist (Krieger, 2011). On the other hand, DNA evidence is viewed with a great deal of suspicion by those who simply do not trust the process or the notion that DNA evidence is protected in a chain of custody. For example, Austin (2015) notes that “scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.” So while DNA evidence can be used to help defendants, it can also be used to frame them: Worth (2018) states, for instance, that “we leave traces of our genetic material everywhere, even on things we’ve never touched. That got Lukis Anderson charged with a brutal crime he didn’t commit.” As The Marshall Project points out, secondary transfer of DNA made it appear that Anderson, a homeless person, was guilty of killing an elderly person he had never met. As DNA is a complex matter that still requires understanding from a scientific point of view, this paper will discuss the positive and negative aspects of using DNA in criminal investigation.
Why DNA Use is Important in Criminal Investigations
The science of criminal investigation and criminology has come a long way. Today, criminal investigators have a number of tools at their disposal to help solve crimes. These tools include the use of psychological profiling, geographical profiling, victim profiling, and DNA profiling. DNA acts not only as physical evidence that can potentially verify an account of what happened at a crime scene, it also can act as a source of information for profiling. A DNA database is essentially like a fingerprint database and contains information that can link suspects to specific crimes while exonerating others. For example, in a rape case, if DNA is collected at the scene, it could match a set of DNA in a profile and bring up the name of a suspect which could be used by criminal investigators to make a case.
DNA use can help to set the record straight. For innocent persons convicted of a crime they did not commit, DNA evidence has been used to exonerate them. Many more await the opportunity to avail themselves of DNA testing to prove they were not at the scene of the crime (Krieger, 2011). In cases where it is difficult to determine whether or not a suspect was at the scene of a crime, DNA usage can be instrumental in making the case.
Worth (2018) states that “DNA is the most accurate forensic science we have. It has exonerated scores of people convicted based on more flawed disciplines like hair or bite-mark analysis. And there have been few publicized cases of DNA mistakenly implicating someone in a crime.” Does this mean that DNA usage is always and in every case 100% accurate? Not at all—it is simply one more tool that criminal investigators can rely upon to help make a case. It should never be used to tell the whole story, just like no case should depend solely upon the use of one, single witness. For that reason, and “like most human enterprises, DNA analysis is not perfect. And without study, the scope and impact of that imperfection is difficult to assess, says Peter Gill, a British forensic researcher” (Worth, 2018).
Why DNA Use is Problematic
As evidence, DNA is not above being tampered with—yet juries respect DNA evidence almost completely: Lieberman, Carrell, Miethe and Krauss (2008) showed that jurors tend to view DNA evidence as being 95% accurate and indicative a person’s guilt or innocence. This is problematic because DNA is simply not that conclusive. As stated above, it can be helpful—but it is not to be relied upon as a the ultimate arbiter. The case of Lukis Anderson shows as much: the DNA found at the crime scene was not his—but it was made to look like his, and criminal investigators developed their narrative for what happened based on the DNA profile they had (Worth, 2018). DNA transfer specialists insist that the level of faith put in DNA usage in criminal investigations needs to be reduced quite a ways: “the criminal justice system must be willing to question DNA evidence” and forensic scientists should be the ones in charge of overseeing the transfer and study of DNA evidence—not law enforcement officers (Worth, 2018). Corruption in the system comes via tiny cracks, just as water takes the path of least resistance. Unless the system allocates control and interpretation of evidence to the experts in the field, the evidence itself becomes capable of being used as a tool for creating false narratives in order to convict. Few people realize that DNA can travel quite easily among persons: it can make as much distance as a fly—yet criminal investigators are quick to simply identify the source of the DNA and not ask the question of how it happened to arrive where it did.
As a tool in profiling, DNA evidence also has its limitation, particularly with respect to the ethics of profiling (Williams & Johnson, 2006). Profiling, no matter what data sets it relies upon, is not based on a uniform standard of operation. Many profilers operate in their own manner—and some in criminal justice even doubt the efficacy of profiling. DNA profiling is no exception. While it can be useful in creating the databases and serving as a guide, to act as though it were a completely empirical science free of any subjective interpretations would be to misunderstand its usage. Additionally, the lack of educational standards and guidelines regarding the use of profiling makes its usage even more ethically dubious (Kocsis, 2003).
Moreover, DNA profiles can be “hacked” so to speak to help create a false narrative, as Israeli scientists have shown: “The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person” (Austin, 2015). Constructing a DNA sample to match a DNA profile for a criminal case is the same as falsifying evidence. That means DNA evidence can be planted, just as it can be in any other type of case. DNA usage, therefore, is not and should not be viewed as fool-proof.
Where the States Stand
Liptak (2009) shows that states may regulate the use of DNA evidence in criminal proceedings, for the Supreme Court has found that “prisoners have no constitutional right to DNA testing that might prove their innocence.” The consequence of this hands-off approach by the Supreme Court is that 46 states have their own laws regarding the circumstances and extent to which prisoners may appeal to have the state’s DNA evidence admitted for testings and the findings applied to their case review (Liptak, 2009). Some states, like Alaska, have no law whatsoever, so if a prisoner seeks to have DNA evidence reviewed, he has no right to make this request.
This is problematic as well because the U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right to due process—and DNA evidence can be used as part of due process in order to clear one’s name. Because not all states and not even the Supreme Court is willing to recognize the usage of DNA as evidence as a right of the accused, the full extent of due process is denied. DNA usage may not be 100% valid, but neither is any other physical piece of evidence or eye witness testimony. This is why courts have juries and why lawyers have to argue cases. It is simply the most appropriate way of dealing with and processing the evidence presented.
Conclusion
DNA usage can be effective in helping cases and it can also be exploited, just like any other type of evidence in a criminal investigation. It can be used by the accused to argue for innocence, and it can be used by the prosecution to argue for guilt. It can be used by forensic scientists to construct profiles, and it can be used criminally to falsify evidence and create a fake narrative. The Supreme Court has stated that inmates do not have the right to have states’ DNA evidence admitted for testing, but most states do have a law indicating the extent to which prisoners can have access to DNA testing to help clear their names. Ultimately, DNA usage should be viewed like any other type of evidence—it is helpful but it is not above being tampered with. For that reason, it can be neither wholly relied upon on its own nor wholly dismissed. Under the right of due process, the defense should be allowed access to DNA testing if it is viewed to help their case. And criminal investigators should approach DNA evidence cautiously and with care so that if they do use DNA to prosecute, they can show that the evidence has not been tampered with and that it does factually link the accused to the crime.




References
Austin, E. (2015). DNA evidence can be faked. Retrieved from
https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2015/02/dna-evidence-can-be-faked
Kocsis, R. N. (2003). Criminal psychological profiling: validities and abilities. 
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(2), 126-144.
Krieger, S. A. (2011). Why our justice system convicts innocent people, and the
challenges faced by innocence projects trying to exonerate them. New Criminal Law Review, 14(3), 333-402.
Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus
platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 27.
Liptak, A. (2009). Justices reject inmate right to DNA tests. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html
Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2006). Inclusiveness, effectiveness and intrusiveness: issues
in the developing uses of DNA profiling in support of criminal investigations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 234-247.
Worth, K. (2018). Framed for murder by his own DNA. Retrieved from
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/19/framed-for-murder-by-his-own-dna