Forensic science is a branch of science that deals with classification, detection, verification and analyzing of material in trying to unravel the mysteries that often surround investigative cases. Police have, through time and experience gained insights into solving their cases more quickly, efficiently and accurately. Forensic science has helped unravel a myriad of cases while reducing the backlog of the same in investigative departments. This has also assisted the judicial department in providing evidence on key cases in which justice could have otherwise been averted. Another thing is that, wrong people were often being put behind bars in cases they every so often had nothing to do with. In some circumstances they even never knew about the cases. Therefore this paper will show how forensic investigative techniques are used in the prosecution of criminal cases and then explain how forensic science is better than traditional methods.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys have in many instances drawn serious arguments using the evidence handed in by the investigative police; these materials mostly provide the blue print for these cases. The reason for this is because they give both parties (prosecutors and defense attorneys) a pivot-point with which to base their facts in the case. Forensic science has helped defense attorneys acquit innocent victims in delicate cases. These are cases in which the absence of forensic evidence, would have led to their being imprisoned or sometimes even hanged (Huck, 2003).
The evolution of forensic science has been there since time immemorial, but through history there has not been a method used that is as good as Forensic D.N.A analysis. This process explores the distinctiveness of an individual’s DNA to answer forensic questions. At times, testing either paternity or maternity has placed suspects at their respective crime scenes.
D.N.A testing has assisted prosecutors bring to book major criminals, murderous, and even smart thieves. Some of these lawbreakers hire the best defense lawyers so that their chances of being brought to book become very slim. Nevertheless, these attorneys, however smart cannot argue and win over cases in which all the forensic evidence point to their clients. This is especially in cases where the D.N.A evidence provided shows the link and sometimes the connection between the crime and the law breakers. In this case, forensics refers to the appliance of a broad spectrum of schools of thought to answer questions of significance to a legal structure.
Forensic science is different and better than traditional methods because, traditional methods were mainly based on hearsay. This is in the sense that, the two aggrieved parties would be brought together side by side to explain their side of the incident. Any one of them with a logical explanation for or against the accusation leveled against him/her would be absolved of the charge. The result was that sometimes the accused ended up being the accuser, and the plaintiff the law breaker. Another aspect is that, it wholly depended on how efficient one defends him or herself. The listening jury was also prone to the whims of mercy by the accused, this would affect the outcome of sentencing since the punishment meted out to the guilty party may be abridged.
Since the cases lacked material evidence, or anything for that matter that could directly link the accused to the case, they usually lacked credence. The development of cellular genetic tools and their relevance to the study and exploration of the human D.N.A has impacted greatly in relation to greater accuracy of investigated results and thus increased the use of organic materials.
In the many instances in which forensic science has been employed to solve a case, whether criminal or civil, there has been very little protest over the results or findings of the research. More often than not, D.N.A has provided links between many cases and crimes in which the perpetrators are not known. In these situations the perpetrators have had their results and sample details filled (Kiely, 2000). These people are often apprehended long after they have committed these atrocities, and the field documented results of their D.N.A samples are the ones that would be used to bring them to book.
Traditionally, forensics relied mainly on finger prints that were mainly obtained from the crime scenes. These were from time to time disputed effectively in courts by the very criminals. There were also errors resulting from mismatches, like in the Madrid train bombing in which a lawyer was put behind bars as the first suspect for several days because the finger prints left by the criminals matched his own. This was according to an initial investigation. Upon a keener investigation and a deeper enquiry, it was found that his finger print was the closest mismatch, meaning the authorities had him convicted for a crime he did not commit.
The accuracy of the fingerprint has been put to test many times and the proponents urge that the method should be phased out once the D.N.A testing is fully operational and legalized (Turvey 2005). They also urge that the wrong people may be apprehended if there fingers happened to be at the crime scene despite them being there earlier. Their borne of contention also lies in the fact that it is prone to be washed away by factors such as time and environmental conditions. These conditions are like rain water and windy weather which causes dust to blow over the prints washing them away. There is also the possibility of criminals deliberately concealing their prints by covering their hands using gloves and any other material that may conceal these prints. This would make it harder for the investigators to trace the criminals in the event delaying the much needed justice to the victims.
Courts and juries place more trust in forensic science than the older forms of doing investigations. This is because while using the older investigative techniques, the court and jury had to make the legal assumption. One of this is that just because your fingerprints identify matches with the one at the crime scene, you were bound to be a suspect even without them having to identify what role you were or were not playing in the crime. Whether one took part in the crime was not established because a suspect could have left his print somewhere around the crime scene earlier before the crime was committed.
A sentence carries more weight and sometimes sounds more meaningful when there is a direct connection between the accused and the case. In DNA sampling, the uniqueness of every DNA spells out the fact that no other human being shares the same DNA information with another one. The probability is highly reduced and the chance, if any, is almost one in a billion. For this reason, the judicial systems of almost all countries trust forensic science due to its ability to link guilty criminals and acquit innocent suspects (Barnet, 2009). Therefore as shown in this paper forensic science is the way to go if at all there is need for credibility in acquitting criminals and other wrong doers.
References
Barnett, D. (2009). Ethics in forensic science: Professional standards. London: Longman Publishers.
Huck, M. (2003). Fundamentals of forensic science. Sydney: Newman publishers.
Kiely, F. (2006). Forensic Evidence: Science and the Criminal Law. Nairobi: CRC Press.
Turvey, E. (2005). Criminal profiling. New York, NY: Oxford university press.