The verdict of the Supreme Court of the United States

Article One
In the article “Taking DNA from All Criminals Should Be Standard Procedure” written by Cyrus R. Vance Jr, 2012, the author makes a claim that DNA evidence is a powerful crime solver. He also states that this method is a superb technique which can avert rapes, robberies and murders in the hundreds annually at a very low cost to citizens. DNA evidence does not just help catch criminals; it also helps absolve the guiltless ones. A major aim I have had in my position of district attorney is to ensure no one gets convicted wrongly. A tool like this all-crimes DNA archive will strongly aid us in achieving our most important goal which is avoiding erroneous convictions (Vance, 2012).
DNA collection is properly regulated and organized at the eight world-class and government-backed state laboratories where criminal forensic analysis is carried out. Strict rules guide the process of DNA testing and results delivery, with an example being the storing of information as barcode and not in name and whoever violates this will face criminal penalties. During testing, if a match is found within the databank, the samples are tested again most times, two additional times. Gathering the DNA of everyone convicted of crimes has been widely supported by all parties within the state, i.e. victims of crime, their lawyers, the acquitted defendants, the bar associations of the city and state and also the police chiefs, sheriffs and district attorneys of the state. However, its adoption in the House has been hindered due to some criminal justice laws which are not as widely backed added to it. Let’s try not to make the same error this year (Vance, 2012).
Article Two
Adam Liptak, 2013, brings to light the verdict of the Supreme Court of the United States which allowed DNA samples to be collected by the police from persons held for possible involvement in serious offences. 28 states as well as the federal government itself allow this and the law enforcement agencies see this as an important tool in investigating unresolved crimes. Nevertheless, he noted that; searching a person without a substantial level of suspicion for the purpose of collecting evidence regarding an unconnected crime is forbidden under the Fourth Amendment, a statement the public didn’t counter. “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason,” Justice Scalia stated (Liptak, 2013).
In the same vein, The Maryland Court of Appeals reached a conclusion that a law allowing the collection of DNA from people that were merely arrested but yet to be found guilty was against the Fourth Amendment‘s ban on unnecessary searches. A Supreme Court judge, while backing the Fourth Amendment, highlighted the importance of an accurate and safe identification and processing of people and possessions that must be arrested by law enforcement officers. He stated that this identification is the same as matching an arrested offender’s face with a wanted notice of a formerly unknown suspect, or comparing his/her tattoos to that of popular gang members so as to detect a criminal connection; or even matching his/her fingerprints with that gotten from the scene of a crime. All these issues were summarized by Justice Scalia who said that information gathered by DNA tests carried out by law enforcement agents is restricted. Testing for identification was authorized but only in cases of human remains and missing people (Liptak, 2013).
Article Three
Criminal acts and court processes have been exploited by television and film scriptwriters for a long time. These days, the employment of court proceedings for dramatic purposes has not just vastly increased; it has also taken on new objectives. Due to raw interest in the criminal justice process, several of the courtroom dramas filmed today have their basis on real cases. The latest drama form focusing on the criminal justice system is the increasingly popular "reality-based" crime-fiction television drama. An example is The Law & Order franchise which airs on television several evenings during the week and boasts of plots “ripped from the headlines” (Shelton, 2008).
Several judges, journalists and attorneys have confessed that certain television programs such as CSI has made jurors who watch them to erroneously absolve guilty defendants even though no scientific proof has been provided. The mass media immediately elaborated these problems. The effect was immediately called the “CSI effect” and a huge amount of blame was directed towards the well-known television series and other similar ones. Information and science are symbiotic in nature. Scientific advancements are encouraged by how much scientists are able to trade and transmit information. In the legal system, conclusive proof is demanded before an alleged offender can be punished by the government. In a situation when a scientific test is present which can conclusively give evidence of innocence or guilt, but the conduction of this test and the presentation of its results to the jury are not carried out, it won’t be unreasonable for the jury to be unconvinced in the veracity of the government’s position. This might seem unreasonable to a number of people, but it really isn’t (Shelton, 2008).










References
Liptak, A. (2013, June 03). Justices Allow DNA Collection After an Arrest. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/supreme-court-says-police-can-take-dna-samples.html?mcubz=1
Shelton, D. E. (2008, March 28). The CSI Effect: Does It Really Exist? Retrieved August 29, 2017, from https://www.nij.gov/journals/259/pages/csi-effect.aspx
Vance, C. R., Jr. (2012, January 23). Taking DNA From All Criminals Should Be Standard Procedure. Retrieved August 29, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/opinion/collect-dna-samples-even-when-its-just-a-misdemeanor.html?mcubz=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article