In the case of the Golden State Killer, the arrest of a suspect increased the public’s attention to advanced DNA technologies that could be used now to solve crimes that happened almost half a century ago. However, the future use of advanced technologies like this implies the widespread submission of DNA. The question of whether all persons or only arrestees and convicted persons should be required to provide their DNA counts numerous different opinions.
According to Gill (2018), due to forensic laboratory contamination, the use of DNA evidence might result in a miscarriage of justice. Gill (2018) emphasizes that forensic DNA techniques need to be improved before being widely used and acknowledged as profiling evidence. As arguments, the author uses four cases where people were wrongly accused of different crimes due to contamination of samples within the lab. For example, in the first case in 2011 in Manchester, Adam Scott was wrongly accused of rape because of a matching DNA profile. In his defense, Scott claimed that he was in his hometown in Plymouth at the moment of a crime.
In addition, Meintjes-Van der Walt and Dhliwayo (2021) emphasize that every possible precaution should be taken to maintain the quality of DNA samples and avoid contamination. The authors emphasize that because the DNA database includes compulsory sources from arrestees and convicts and voluntary contributions, the DNA evidence should be used in combination with other pieces of evidence. In an article by Ahuriri-Driscoll et al. (2020), authors noted concerns that Maori expressed over collection of samples for forensic use, as Maori people share multiple familial relations and similar DNA.
In my opinion, the DNA submissions should include arrestees and convicted persons before the technology is improved, and there is a risk of contamination of DNA samples. For example, currently, the use of multiple layers and sets of hand gloves helps prevent the samples’ contamination (National Forensic Academy, 2016). However, in cases of biological stains which are small in nature, the risk of contamination and wrong interpretation of DNA is always present.
Thus, DNA evidence should be used in combination with other pieces of evidence only to narrow the circle of suspects to avoid possible miscarriages of justice. If an individual voluntarily submitted their DNA samples, they should not be punished for that action with a false accusation just because of a DNA match. Thus, DNA evidence should be used to narrow the circle of suspects before the technology is improved and other people could safely submit their DNA samples.
References
Ahuriri-Driscoll, A., Tauri, J., & Veth, J. (2020). Māori views of forensic DNA evidence: an instrument of justice or criminalizing technology. New Genetics and Society, 1-18. Web.
Gill, P. (2018). DNA evidence and miscarriages of justice. Forensic Science International, 294, 1-3. Web.
Meintjes-Van der Walt, L., & Dhliwayo, P. (2021). DNA Evidence as the Basis for Conviction. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 24, 1 – 35. Web.
National Forensic Academy. (2016). How to properly swab DNA evidence at a crime scene [Video]. YouTube. Web.