I must say as appealing as this process may be [even to me] there are many pros and cons. First and foremost in my mind is that there are far too many cases where law enforcement has operated through tunnel vision thus the resulting need to overturn [faulty] convictions. This is the exact same reason that I personally have mixed emotions on the death penalty. Forensic science has thankfully come a long way and has been an immeasurable tool but it is ONLY a tool that like any other tool in the tool box can be misused. The taking of DNA following an arrest is something I could support provided there were additional considerations such as it is a felony arrest and there exists equally substantiating evidence supporting the idea that the individual is truly a viable suspect for the crime.
Personally I believe that DNA is very compelling evidence however, I also believe that it should be further substantiated with additional physical evidence. I feel that we have reached a point in time where jurors have not only come to expect forensic evidence as part of the process, but they also demand that the presentation of this evidence provide a clear connection between the suspect and the crime. As a criminal justice student I naturally support whatever helps solve crimes, but not to the detriment our constitutional rights.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment