Introduction
Fundamental concepts of psychology reveal confessions, as a sort of incrimination may affect other forms of evidence, thus, generating appearance of validation. To ensure credibility of evidence tabled in front of court staff, laboratory based methodologies support high stake cases in the world hence the need to analyze DNA exoneration elements closely. Researches unveil that confessions may have errors or falsified information compared to DNA exoneration and eyewitnesses cases. To emphasize further, emerging evidence shows an alarming increase in the number of wrong convictions and unlawful sentences. There are numerous underlying factors for wrong sentences. For example, mistaken identity but later the evidence can become irrelevant after DNA testing. This essay will define DNA exoneration, its advantages and disadvantages, its history and specific case studies that show the gap its feels.
History of DNA Exoneration
Since the discovery and advancement of DNA testing in 1985, Biological material proved to be more dependable and consistent tangible proof at crime scenes, especially among sexual violation law breaking (Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). Deoxyribonucleic acid encompasses genetics concepts, which varies from one person to another. Simply put, a person’s DNA is unique to them alone.
DNA testing came into the criminal system in 1980s, elementary in its utilization during its early days. Juries did not completely trust findings from DNA, given the lack of knowledge and insight on the matters surrounding the topic (Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). Throughout the years, DNA rose in popularity and relevance and became more accessible and cheap due to its accurate nature.
In the year, 1987, a rapist in the outskirts of Florida became the first ever person imprisoned based on evidence derived from DNA testing. More over after two years elapsed DNA proof exonerated a person from Illinois, known as Gary Dotson who was innocent of rape charges pressed against him (Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). Even though Gary’s release was not met with celebrations, it marked the commencement of DNA age of clarity and full proof evidence in unveiling and demonstrating that evidence presented in law courts can be false.
Most studies show that DNA is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. DNA evidence commonly characterized with minute, yet powerful proofs covers only a paltry five to ten percent of the criminal cases. Similarly, DNA exonerations encompass a minor percentage of the sum of all the exonerations (Chang, 2008). Publicized exonerations create awareness and people question past and present convictions. Then, scrutiny makes the judiciary reinforce and introduce best practices within federal institutions.
The Meaning and Relevance of DNA Exoneration
In March 1988, a New Jersey resident named Byron Halsey sentenced for cruel rape and killing of a young boy and girl, both aged eight years old. The material utilized to incriminate Halsey was his own admission, which he provided after an estimated 30 hours of questioning coupled slumber deficiency (Chang, 2008).. In fact, Halsey came up with various versions of the same story before he finally revealed how the actual ordeal took place. However, law enforcers only recorded his accurate statement and left out the guesses he gave them. Consequently, the jury used the statement to sentence him. Halsey served 19 good years in prison after which DNA findings verified his innocence and pointed out the real killer.
In America, eight states lack laws that permit convicts accessibility to DNA data or proof. They are the only states within the whole of America that do not allow exoneration through DNA testing (Chang, 2008). By denying inmates DNA test, the states impose sovereign rights rather than constitutional rights to its locals. All in all, it is not reasonable keeping innocent people in prison.
Innocent people may end up behind bars for crimes they did not commit. Various explanations go deep into such matters. For example, mistaken identity is responsible for an estimated 81% convictions. Eyes witness may present inaccurate information due to impaired vision, a forgetful memory, or poor account of the events of that particular day. In addition, a witness point of view can change or be subject to manipulation due to certain law procedures and paper work (Chang, 2008).. Despite the above challenges pertaining to eyewitnesses’ statements, jurors trust eyewitness no matter the underlying consequences and probability of inaccuracy. On the other hand, the low amount of money paid to defense lawyers representing individuals leads to lack of resources needed to pursue a case thus the person loses ends up in prison. Sometimes witnesses give false statements due to confusion.
It is vital to note that convicting an innocent person amounts to tragedy of unknown magnitude (Chang, 2008). Flawed convictions have widespread ripple effect to the victim and his or her family. More so, the witnesses, judges and other parties may feel the effect. Hence, it is only necessary for people to gain insight on the underlying causes of the problem.
Advantages and Disadvantages of DNA Exoneration
Obviously, proving the innocence of a person is a fulfilling and integral thing to do. In a criminal system, a confession is normally so strong that once a person testifies, other factors are swept under the carpet. DNA evidence plays a major role in revealing falsified information (Shay, 2008). An estimated 25% out of the total exoneration display mistakes and inconsistency.
With DNA technology, comes ability to obtain fingerprints from any place but wearing gloves may prevent a perpetrator from leaving fingerprints at a crime scene. On the positive side, obtaining DNA proof from a crime scene is easy as anything from hair strands to saliva can reveal information and facilitate capturing the perpetrator of the crime (Shay, 2008). For example, when one sneezes at a crime scene, saliva and body liquids possess DNA information hence tracing the assailant becomes attainable. Secondly, DNA testing gives watertight evidence. No one has the same DNA as the other, hence analyses exposes many facets and narrows down to the perpetrator easily.
14th Amendment
In summary, Failing to give post-sentencing inmates DNA exoneration is in contradiction of the principles of the constitution because it goes against the due procedural section or article found in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment ascertains that no state has the right to deny a person freedom or liberty (Shay, 2008). The Supreme Court strictly supports the due procedural article, which guarantees an inmate access to DNA evidence. Simply put, any defendant can access DNA evidence. In the ‘Brady verses Maryland’ Brady, got first-degree murder even though he argued that he was innocent. Only after sentencing did he notice the faulty confession was withdrawn from him. Brady applied for a motion based on the withheld confession. After careful scrutiny of the evidence via DNA mechanisms and procedures, he won the case.
References
Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological science, 23(1), 41-45.
Chang, S. S. (2008). Protecting the innocent: Post-conviction dna exoneration. Hastings Const. LQ, 36, 285.
Shay, G. (2008). What We Can Learn About Appeals from Mr. Tillman's Case: More Lessons from Another DNA Exoneration. U. Cin. L. Rev., 77, 1499.
