Benefits Of Collecting Dna From Felons

In Maryland, police officers are permitted to collect DNA from suspects who are arrested for crimes of violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. This has proven to be effective in identifying criminals. One of the criminals that was caught using DNA evidence, Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was extremely dissatisfied when he was linked to and charged for another crime when he was arrested and charged for assault. When his DNA was taken, law enforcement officers found that his DNA matched the DNA evidence of a previous rape case. Because of this discovery, King received the life sentence and decided to appeal his case, arguing that the MDCA (Maryland DNA Collection Act) was unconstitutional and violated the Fourth Amendment. The fundamental question

According to Robert Dominique and Dufresene Martin, writing in a New Genetics & Society article, DNA meaning deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material present in all living organisms. DNA and DNA databanks are major forms of evidence in the investigation process and in the discovery of the guilt or innocence. According to Robert and Martin, since the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, states require offenders convicted of certain crimes to provide DNA samples; this preventing the offenders from committing new crimes because they know they can be caught again due to their DNA samples registered in the system. In 1999, New York police authorities linked a man through the use of DNA samples to 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had troubled the

I am sided with the right to allow DNA Analysis for a crime a suspect is convicted for committing but is pledging not guilty in the trial. About 0.5% convictions of crime are the innocent serving jail time in prison or death row and are not even the actual suspect of the crime scene putting other people at fault of those who have not done any harm. This even violates an individual’s right of freedom as they are being wrongfully accused and imprisoned. These people who are being accused should have the right to be proven they are not the suspect by true accurate DNA analysis over false eyewitness or misidentification as even it can be used as an importance of pulling vital clues regarding the perpetrator of a crime in which a victim’s condition is unrecognizable to family or friends.

Summing up, States like New York, Colorado, and even Wisconsin have passed legislation to collect DNA from misdemeanor. As a society I can see some good that can from this. However, I believe there can be more shame being done than useful outcomes coming from this legislation. I do not believe that a state can afford to run all these DNA samples. Also, if you look at States DNA processing time, some results may take long as two weeks to come back. If it takes this long to get results back on felony crimes, it may take double the time if legislation was allowed in all 50 States. My recommendation is that legislation of this sort should not be allowed. States should only be allowed to collect DNA for those who are convicted of felony

James Rachels argues against utilitarianism on the bases of justice, rights, and backward looking reasons. In this paper I will address Rachels reasoning for rights to be a means of denying a consequentialist view, counter-examples to support his reasons, and why utilitarianism ultimately should be rejected. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which only the maximum amount of happiness for the most amount of people matters. It is a consequence based philosophy where an action is morally right if it benefits the majority of society, which creates many loop holes for injustice. Utilitarianism opens a door to exploit others in a morally inept fashion, allowing people to believe their actions are right when actually they are morally wrong.

The type of information that DNA can reveal can include future disease potentials and ancestry information (Maclin, 2005). This would be a strong argument under the Fourth Amendment as an illegal search and seizure (Maclin, 2005). Since Maryland v. King, the reliability of DNA labs is subject to compromise because of an unrealistic workload placed on understaffed labs (Ferrell, 2013). This was true even before this case ruling when the

Analytical laboratories from Indiana found that DNA arrestee laws could annually save the state $20 million in judicial and law enforcement expenses alone (Taking). This amount is found when factoring in the amount of crime that would be prevented if such laws passed. Researchers argue that criminals most often tend to be repeat offenders and with the DNA arrestee laws, each felony conviction would prevent an average of 7-8 crimes (Taking). Equally important, each conviction would potentially have a fiscal benefit of approximately $13,000 (Taking). Even though it may seem that the additional tests, which will be needed after DNA arrestee laws are put into effect, will cost the taxpayers, it will actually save them money in the end. Instead of having to pay for all of the additional investigations for crimes committed by repeat offenders, they will only have to pay for the first couple prior to the criminal being

In this essay, I will be writing about utilitarianism and the most important notion that arises from it, which is that an action is morally right only if it maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Cahn, 114). First, I will explain what utilitarianism is, when and by whom it was originally created, and a brief explanation of what it stands for. I will then explain the two different types of classical utilitarianism and explain the differences between the two. Next, I will give two arguments to why the utilitarian position is not satisfactory. I will also be giving possible counter-arguments that the utilitarianisms would have stated and then my own arguments to these counter-arguments. I will then conclude the essay by stating my thesis again and by briefing the reader on the main topics which were covered in this essay.

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?” (John F. Kennedy). This is true to today the justice system is broken, and it is up to the people to fix it. People like the innocence project have come to realize how bad the used of evidence really is in our justice system. Often times people are sentenced for crimes they did not commit which could have been prevented through DNA testing. The misuse of evidence in the justice system is a huge problem, which can be solved by testing and using DNA properly.

The stakes are much too high to allow anyone to have a DNA database of everyone. There are chances of information abuse that could create even more work than, to begin with. The probability of something going wrong with the system is far too high. There will always be at least one person that will disagree, and claim that it is an invasion of privacy that will make sure this kind of database never goes through. Taking everyone's DNA is a disaster waiting. There are far too many problems with a DNA database that can

The use of DNA databasing is not only a controversial subject, but a very complex one. On the surface, the Fourth Amendment seems to guard against keeping a database full of individual’s DNA without their will. However, DNA databasing has been used successfully to solve crimes, as well as prove people’s innocence. Does this fact allow investigators to use DNA without a person’s full consent for the greater good? The concept of bodily autonomy says no, but laws and court cases have been interpreted as to say keeping DNA databases are lawful. The morality of keeping DNA databases are up to interpretation of various factors.

But with modern crime scene science and DNA testing prosecutors have a bargaining tool with the prisoners. Those in life imprisonments will have a deterrence against a guard, or another prisoner. Also, prosecutors will then have an easier job helping the perpetrator admit to guilt, which would diminish drastic measures that create more trials and will necessitate more tax payers dollars. However, with the bargaining tool of capital punishment the time, cost, and the personnel requirements of the case is cut for the prosecutor. Cutting the cost and time of court employees, and tax payers dollars with the use of DNA testing is of vital importance because of the large expense that capital punishment would be without modern crime scene

The use of forensic DNA can be a valuable tool in the investigative field. The use of DNA profiling has only been around for 20 years in criminal investigations. The first famous DNA forensic analysis took place in 1986 when the British police used DNA fingerprinting to solve a case involving the rape and murder of two girls. Today, police departments work with the Combined DNA Index System of the FBI, which has computerized records of the DNA of individuals who have been convicted in the past. Recently, federal laws have been passed to include preconviction DNA in their databases. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Maryland v. King that the collection and testing of DNA can be done without a warrant.

An optimistic feature of DNA is that it can be used to relate a someone to wrongdoing. Also, it could free somebody who has been alleged of lawbreaking that they had nothing to do with.

Crime solving has come a long way since the P.I days, and with the extreme advances in biology and the sciences, forensics has integrated itself into criminology with a fervor. Starting around the 1980’s Scientist Sir Alec Jeffreys and his team first derived the process of DNA fingerprinting and realized the incredible tool they had at their disposal for anything from paternity testing to DNA evidence comparison at crime scenes. After Jeffreys’ DNA fingerprinting was used to put away a dangerous criminal with matched evidence, the process evolved using the technology of Poly Chain Reaction (PCR) and Gel Electrophoresis (The history of genetic fingerprinting). With this relatively easy system of DNA fingerprinting and the very small amount of easily collected DNA that can be used to develop a fingerprint, criminal convictions using DNA evidence and fingerprinting has become an integral part of crime scene investigations. And it was with this increase in dependence upon DNA to solve crimes that the government began to institute more laws surrounding the collection of DNA from individuals facing arrest, convicted or otherwise. While DNA exoneration has come a long way in terms of technological advancements and uses, there is questionability as to what the government is utilizing in requiring mandatory DNA sampling and the further implications upon human rights as DNA becomes a staple of most criminal conviction cases.