Modern technological advancements have influenced virtually all sectors in the society. The various procedures of identifying crime are now conducted using technology. A number of technological advances have helped law enforcement agencies in accurately identifying a criminal suspect. The most popular one which has been discussed is the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis. Biometric identification, intra-agency databases for DNA, fingerprint and palm print, and camera and wiretap surveillance have been very effective in enhancing criminal identification.
It has emerged that these advances have significant effects on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, particularly from the perspective of crime control. Post-conviction DNA testing has become a major concern in the criminal justice system. In some instances, DNA tests give negative results on the evidence which means the convict is exonerated (Houck, 2005). However, it has always been argued in forensics that lack of DNA traces that does imply lack of commission of a crime. Therefore, criminals are aware of the fact that their attempts to ensure no traces of blood or body fluids containing DNA will not imply that they are innocent when DNA test is done. It can be agreed that DNA analysis is one of the ways of control crime but it has its limitations and strengths depending on how it is used and the nature of crime (Semikhodskii, 2007). Since DNA analysis of evidence from a crime scene can be used to identify a suspect, the number of crime has notably gone down.
Intra-agency databases for DNA have also contributed to fighting violent crime. Databases for DNA are in the custody of the government in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This system relies on biological traces left on the crime scene to come up with investigative leads that may result in apprehension of the suspects. The two indices; Convicted Offender Index (COI) and the Forensic Index (FI) are used in the investigation. COI contains DNA of persons convicted of felony sex crimes and related violent offenses while FI contains DNA profiles gathered from evidence collected from the crime scene (Semikhodskii, 2007). Since all the states in the U.S have laws demanding that DNA samples of specified offenders be forwarded to the CODIS, the frequency of crime is checked especially by ex-convicts due to the fact that they would have been earmarked (Houck, 2005). As time goes by, more DNA samples are collected and forensic officers are undergoing further training, implying that these technologies have helped significantly in crime control. This has added to the efficiency of criminal justice system since there are fingerprint databases which can be used to identify multiple time offenders.
However, these developments in technology and their application in the criminal justice system have not been without fierce criticisms from concerned individuals. DNA databases have been blamed as infringing on innocent people’s privacy (Semikhodskii, 2007). Unlike fingerprint databanks, DNA databases provide comprehensive details of intimate details about an individual and relatives, especially diseases, sexual orientation, and other legitimate concerns. This may result in discrimination from other stakeholders like government, insurers, banks, and employers. This compromises the otherwise efficient method of controlling crime in the society.
Reference
Houck, M. M. (2005). Technological advancements: DNA and the criminal justice system. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 155(6): 1398.
Semikhodskii, A. J. (2007). Forensics: understanding DNA evidence and analysis. Routledge.