The Use Of DNA Evidences In The Court

DNA v. s The Court Blood. Hair. Skin cells. All these things are apart of you, DNA tracks you everywhere you go no matter how far, so it should be allowed to track you if you did a crime right? Let’s say you travel to Colorado and kill someone however they don’t do any DNA testing for the court that won’t make the victim’s family feel safe. If you did something that is illegal and hurt someone in the process you should get a punishment. With this DNA evidence it helps in many cases. For instance it helped in the murder of Krystal Beslanowitch in 1995, and the case of the Golden State Killer from the 70’s. Also DNA should be able to give innocent people their lives back those who have been falsely accused of breaking the law when really they didn’t get a fair trial, and we have invested in new DNA technology and it has been evolving for awhile so that technology should go towards helping people victim to the law or the victim of a crime that may haunt them for a long time. DNA should be apart of trials around the world to help, save, and make some people feel safe knowing that we have some strong evidence to bring to the table to protect them. DNA is always with you, for example in the case of Krystal Beslanowitch, she had been beaten in the head with a rock which caused her to died. The lab processed everything and they were able to get touch evidence from the rock that was used to kill her.

The DNA of the retired bus driver came up and he was immediately arrested. Also in the 70s a serial killer named the Golden State Killer has a killing spree going on he was estimated to have twelve murders, fifty rapes, and many home invasions, California. At the time they didn’t know who this killer was however in the 200s the police were able to get the unknown killers DNA at one of the crime scenes: The Murder of Lyman and Charline Smith. The investigators reviewed many rape kids in samples from different victims later on they finally found the killer to be Joseph James D’Angelo they found him from the website that tested his family DNA. Stories like Krystal’s and how they caught the Golden State Killer are very inspiring insight to think about when we think if we should or shouldn’t use DNA evidence in court cases. If we were able to use DNA evidence then we could give the falsely accuse people their lives back. For instants, in Illinois the governor, George Ryan had to use DNA testing on some death row inmates, these test found thirteen of twenty-five of the prisoners could’ve been found it in a sec. One of the prisoners, Rory Criner who was sentenced to 99 years in prison for the cutest rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. His uncle said that he wasn’t himself before that even occurred "Roy has been depressed lately. He had been living with his brother but had just moved out not long ago." (Jim webre) His uncle even saw the signs then he was accused after that. However he was later set free because he had been tested and his DNA came back and it was not a match to the evidence the police had. Things that DNA evidence can do is great for people, we just need to be able to use this great advantage. Today’s technology has really advanced overtime It has allowed us to go from using blood typing used in the 1920s to now using next-generation sequencing (parallel sequencing) which unwinds the DNA so we can match is you do the culprit. For example when we got the new technology people around the world were able to use it for good. The old technology could be used for good as well but since we have this new technology scientist are able to use it for more efficient purposes.

For example nowadays we could take a case in immediately find out his fingerprints are on the murder weapon however back then we couldn’t do that because then it wasn’t as advanced as it is now. If we didn’t have the new generation of technology we have today cases like crystals for all the victims of the Golden State killer and lots more murder that have happened around the world all the time would be lost in constellation. Ask yourself how would you feel if somebody you love was murdered and there’s DNA on it and the killer could be caught and arrested for what he did what would you want to do? If we didn’t have the new generation of technology we have today cases like krystals and all the victims of the Golden State killer and many more would be unstable still. All the around the world there are victims of crimes, or people that are being punished when they haven't done anything, and also people are getting away with bad crimes when they are the ones who should be punished however the others are the ones who deserve to feel safe. To do that something had to happen and that needs to be allowing DNA evidence into courtrooms to set things straight. Some people might say if we allow DNA evidence into court rooms this will be allowing bias information in because the evidence might be tampered with but for it to be tampered with that would be one test however scientists make more than one test to find out the final solution on whose DNA it is. So allowing do you need evidence in court rooms would do more good than bad it would save many and comfort many more.