The Role of the Supreme Court
The criminal justice system of the United States of America values the presumption of innocence, and numerous individuals who are suspected or accused of a crime have the opportunity to defend themselves. In addition, the government utilizes the Constitution to control the process of the law enforcement agency collecting evidence (Marion & Oliver, 2012). The biggest problem related to the relationship between privacy and the necessity of a warrant is mitigated by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is the most authoritative legislative body that takes part in the decisions regarding the intricate court trials associated with privacy and the constitutionality of collecting evidence. Needless to say, it is the Supreme Court that allows the police officers to engage in the procedure of collecting DNA evidence and outlines the guiding principles for this particular procedure (Gaines, 2014). When it came to the discussion of collecting DNA evidence at a crime scene, judges of the Supreme Court could not make a comprehensive joint decision.
The ultimate verdict that was reached by judges of the Supreme Court claimed that the police officers are not required to issue warrants if they believe that it is necessary to obtain DNA evidence from the suspect or convict. The Supreme Court of the United States also claimed that the procedure of collecting DNA evidence should not be any different from taking pictures of the crime scene or taking fingerprints. Even so, there should be a causal connection between the motives of delinquency and the crime itself. In a number of cases, this leads to the disparagement of the criminal justice system because the procedure of DNA sample obtaining becomes unconstitutional (Gaines, 2014).
The Influence of DNA Evidence
The influence of DNA evidence on the Court’s actions is huge. The current technological progress is expected to develop this particular practice and help the Supreme Court in reaching correct verdicts even in the toughest situations (Carmen & Hemmens, 2016). Every year, more and more DNA samples become a part of the database of the law enforcement agency. By relying only on DNA evidence, the police forces will be able to foresee and avert a reasonable number of delinquencies.
The Supreme Court’s decisions are also influenced by DNA evidence because the existing samples from the police database can be matched to the suspect’s DNA. By doing this, the law enforcement agency is able to spot crimes that are committed by the offenders that were convicted before. DNA sample collection may help to prevent rapes and other serious types of crime because the criminals may be proven guilty and convicted simply by reason of the attained DNA sample (Gardner & Anderson, 2016).
The Problems Connected to the Usage of DNA Evidence
Of course, one may argue that DNA evidence is one of the most efficient techniques of foreseeing and preventing crimes all over the United States. Nevertheless, the usage of DNA samples in the forensic process is associated with a number of complex problems inherent in criminal investigations (Siegel, 2017). One of the key reasons why the use of DNA evidence is resource-intensive is the fact that many laboratories are overloaded with DNA samples that most probably will never be used to investigate a crime. Another reason is outdated equipment that does not allow the workers to process the samples in an efficient and time-saving manner (Siegel, 2017).
In perspective, this leads to recurrent delays in the processes of the US criminal justice and adversely impacts all the actors involved. Also, the development and innovation of DNA sample processing necessitate supplementary training because the definitive goal of effectively using DNA evidence is to safeguard the victims of crimes. The last problem connected to the use of DNA samples in practice is the level of partiality that the latter tend to generate. One of the underlying reasons is that the individuals involved in the process of synthesizing DNA samples possess different knowledge bases and adhere to dissimilar professional standards.
The Effect of DNA Evidence on Social Justice
Currently, one of the most significant drawbacks of DNA evidence is the presence of a big number of unwarranted DNA samples that are not analyzed by forensic labs in a timely matter. Subsequently, this drawback impacts both criminal and social justice postulates (Carmen & Hemmens, 2016). Innocent individuals may be proven guilty, and criminals may be set free. Currently, the issues inherent in the process of collecting and processing DNA evidence cannot be resolved due to the limitations mentioned above.
Also, it is pivotal to consider the outlooks of the US citizens who believe that DNA sample collection is unconstitutional. The effectiveness of this approach, though, is validated by numerous research projects in the area (Gardner & Anderson, 2016). The analysis of DNA samples became an irreplaceable tool, but the researchers have to come up with certain ways intended to improve this procedure and facilitate the criminal justice methods as well. In perspective, this will help to eradicate intolerance and mitigate the negative aspects of this criminal justice tool.
References
Carmen, V. R., & Hemmens, C. (2016). Criminal procedure: Law and practice. Boston, MA: Cengage.
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2016). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases. Boston, MA: Cengage.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Siegel, L. J. (2017). Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies. Boston, MA: Cengage.
