DNA Truth and Fallacies 1

The History of DNA Forensics-Who Controls the Evidence

By

David G. CABAN, MBA

History of DNA Forensics

DNA technology is a system that was developed as in the early 19th Century.

Gregor Michael developed the science of inherited characteristics in history of inherited

characteristics of pea plants in 1866 (Naughton, 2005). The concept of inherited

characteristics is the basis of DNA technology, and it was first utilized in the criminal

justice system in the mid 1980’s. DNA Technology won its first conviction in the United

States in 1987 (Naughton, 2005).

DNA, which is abbreviated for deoxyribonucleic acid that consist of two chains of

nucleotides bonded together in a double helix. This scientific evidence is responsible for

determine the inherit characteristic of each living organism (Naughton, 2005).

Historically, DNA can be extracted reliably from clean blood specimen, and-or

other metabolic fluids, such as, semen and other biological fluids that can be link to its

original source (Naughton, 20005). For example, bloodstains found on a shirt can be trace

to the individual or perpetrator.

The problematic issue with DNA evidence is that it can be manipulated to win a

conviction, also, keeping innocent people behind bars for the sake of a political agenda

(Naughton, 2005).

History of DNA Technology

 DNA Truth and Fallacies 2

The first conviction used by DNA evidence occurred in Portland, Oregon in 1987.

During the early phases of DNA evidence jurors were confused as to the process of DNA

evidence linking to the defendant.

DNA evidence for the past twenty-five (25) years was not only utilized to convict

people of crime, but also, innocent people wrongfully convicted of crimes were free

based on DNA evidence. Furthermore, within the past 25 years over 10 death row

inmates in the United States have been exonerated from their conviction based on DNA

evidence.

The faulty evidence utilized in the past have been eyewitness testimony, however,

through DNA Technology contradicted eyewitness account. As a result, several

individuals’ serving either lengthy prison terms and on death row was exonerated,

because DNA analysis proved their innocence (Brown, 2005, p. 1588).

An English scientist named Alec J. Jeffreys first introduced DNA analysis in

1985. The late 1980’s DNA finally used evidence by both law enforcement and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). DNA consists of comparing selected segments of

molecules from different sources. Because of the fact, DNA molecules are comprise of

billions of segments, however, only a small portion of the individual is extracted to

determine someone’s fate.

The genomic strand is a DNA strand that makes up the individual structure. The

DNA strand can also be duplicated, For example, to duplicate DNA from plants and

animals for scientific research (Sunderland, West, Waterworth and Bray, 2005). A

duplication of cells for scientific study may not present any problem, however, if needed
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 3

to manipulate scientific evidence can be probable (Sunderland, West, Waterworth, and

Bray, 2005).

In relation to prisoners and lifers pleading his or her innocence DNA forensic can

benefit. DNA technology is used to compare evidence, for example, semen samples of

rape victims are analyzed with the accursed perpetrator blood sample. As a result, the

defendant is deemed innocent (Naughton, 2005). Quite the contrary, DNA evidence can

also be distorted by manipulating scientific evidence that misrepresent the guilt of the

defendant (Naughton, 2005). Manipulating state’s evidence is artistic, which the state

attorney could potentially used to win a conviction (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). For

example, in some capital punishment cases lifers charged for sex crimes were unable to

pursue DNA technology to prove their innocence (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). Because

of the fact, DNA evidence collected from the crime scene had been either destroyed or

discarded (Risinger, 2007). As a result, people wrongfully accused of crimes became

subject for the penal system. The defendant either had too accepted the consequences of a

crime that neither he nor she committed. Furthermore continuing the protest of their

innocence (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005).

The concept of releasing inmate from the prison system is not based on

convincing the system your innocent, but rather, your outcome in the future, which would

determine becoming eligible for parole (Naughton, 2005). However, the penal system, as

well as, it staffers are clinging to the courts decision or verdict (Naughton, 2005).

Therefore, if a prisoner or lifer is innocent they must admit to the crime he or she is

committed, which is one of the penal guideline for either early release or parole

(Naughton, 2005). In addition, prisoners or lifers knowingly of their innocents are

 DNA Truth and Fallacies 4

included within the prisons guidelines or booklet that advises prisoners of their terms and

conditions of their prison sentence and release plans (Naughton, 2005). Regardless, of

whether or not the prisoner or lifer is innocent he or she must admit to the crime they are

committed.

One of the specific term and conditions for prisoners is to refrain from protesting

his or her innocence (Naughton, 2005). However, must accept courts decision, which

most prisoners refute. Some researchers believe it is a government’s betrayal against

society, because it is considered to be unconstitutional (Naughton, 2005). It is

unconstitutional for the courts to allow the state or prosecution to fraudulently manipulate

state’s evidence, such as, DNA samples gathered from both the defendant and the crime

scene (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). The rationale or hypothesis for the prosecution to

manipulate evidence is to win a conviction (Naughton, 2005). In addition, through the use

of the mass media convince the public that DNA evidence does work, without the public

especially the juror know how DNA evidence can be manipulated (Cole, 2007;

Naughton, 2005). Although, some staff members might be persuaded or convince of the

inmates innocents through DNA faulty evidence the rules set forth by the penal system

accept the contrary (Naughton, 2005). This has similarity to the differential association

theory that describes the differences between upper and lower social classes’ struggles

within society. Upper society people have the political power to create, control and

enforce laws designed to target the lower social classes within society (Cole, 2007).

Faulty evidence
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 5

Prisoner and lifer admitting his or her guilt is a good indicator to qualify for early

release or parole, because they met the guidelines of the prison system (Coker, 2003).

However, those who protest their innocent the end would serve longer prison sentence, in

contrast, to fellow prisoners and lifers admitting the guilt (Coker, 2003). For example, in

the case of Stephen Downing convicted for a crime he did not commit. However, both the

prison institution and the parole board insist in admitting to a crime (Coker, 2003).

Stephen Downing persisted with his innocence and refused in admitting to the parole

board of a crime he did not commit (Coker, 2003). As a result, Stephen Downing spent

twenty-seven (27) years incarcerated, and the prison staff even admitted to his innocence.

The parole deal operates on a partial note for prisoners and lifers, such as, Stephen

Downing to admit their conviction. Inmates admitting to a crime that they are committed

would be eligible for early release from the prison system (Coker, 2003).

Cognitive distortion is the concept that prison psychologist impugns in the minds

of both prisoners and lifers, which is to admit to their crime even if they did not commit it

(Coker, 2003). As a result, prisoners and lifers can potentially be release with a reduction

risk of re-offending (Coker, 2003). If the prisoner or lifer who is innocent refuses to

admit to the crime he or she is committed could experience discomfort, because of the

inhumane treatment they experience while incarcerated (Butler & Morgan, 2007; Coker,

2003). Furthermore, it could potentially harm the prisoner and lifers who are innocent,

which affects their cognitive process (Coker, 2003). It could potentially develop anger,

pain, depression and sadness, which posses’ negative affects to the individual (Butler &

Moran, 2007).
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 6

The concept of cognitive distortion produces negative feeling, thought, which are

associated with anxiety, which is link to the rise of fight and-or flight tendencies (Butler

& Moran, 2007). The flight is the action of fear within the individual, which chooses not

to confront the problem, but rather, resist the problem. In contrast, to anger which give

rise to individual having been coerce by the prison system of admitting to a crime they

may have not committed (Butler & Moran, 2007). And as a result, the prisoner and lifer

could potentially retaliate against the system, as well as, society once release (Butler &

Moran, 2007).

During the early stages of prisoners and lifers enter the process of admitting to a

crime he or she is innocent and not have committed, but would be committed serving a

prison sentence the inmate would have little influence, which is beyond any appraisal and

aversive. Some prisoners and lifers may retaliate by violent means during the early phase

of their incarceration without deliberation or forethought, because of the rush anger and

frustration of becoming confine to an environment by of no choice (Butler & Moran,

2007).

The latter phase prisoners and lifers would become adaptable o their new

environment, because cognitive appraisal may go operative and substantially influence

his or her emotional reaction after the initial automatic responses that occurred during the

early stages of incarceration (Butler & Moran, 2007; Coker, 2003). Furthermore,

prisoners and lifers would experience the hardship of both incarceration and lack of

freedom, but would inadvertently resist the thoughts of their horrific experience, and

would perhaps try to control the arousal of bitter feeling and negative conduct (Butler &

Moran, 2007).
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 7

In regards to post execution there have been several cases involving for each state

to pass a law, which would allow for post DNA testing (Risinger, 2007). For example, in

the State of Virginia Roger Coleman an inmate convicted of crime, but claiming. After

his execution the law in the State of Virginia allowed the exhumation of his body for post

DNA examination (Risinger, 2007, p. 765). Roger Coleman was executed in 1992;

however, the defense believed that it was based on weak evidence against him (Risinger,

2007). DNA examination was performed, and revealed that Roger Coleman was guilty

for the crime he was convicted and executed (Risinger, 2007, p. 765).

The concept of the State of Virginia allowing post DNA examination was not

only to substantiate the fact of Roger Coleman guilt, but also rather, set a precedent for

post DNA examination (Risinger, 2007).

United States Congress often rationalized as to whether or not it is

unconstitutional to execute someone if DNA examination would later prove his or her

innocence (Risinger, 2007). The prosecution of innocent individual has been perceived

from two different perspectives: First, if someone was convicted wrongfully of a crime

demonstrated to society that it would only control crime (Risinger, 2007). Secondly, to

convict an innocent individual would obviously suggest a problem within the criminal

justice system, which is in need for revisioning (Risinger, 2007). Therefore, it becomes

the duty of the criminal justice system to protect the innocents (Risinger, 2007).

Individual’s wrongfully accused of crimes based on faulty evidence have to wait

years for an appeal, which allows for DNA evidence to substantiate their innocence

(Risinger, 2007). Quite the contrary, DNA evidence can potentially be manipulated for
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 8

the state attorney to win a conviction, as well as, keeping innocent people behind bars

(Naughton, 2005).

There have been innumerous prisoners who are innocent but are charged and

serving lengthy prison terms for crimes they did not commit. Instead, of pursuing seeking

justice for those wrongfully accused the system would rather report that a significance

amount of prison population is innocent (Risinger, 2007). It proves that the criminal

justice system has flaws for two reason, first, the department of correction would admit

on a smaller scale of the prison population are wrongfully convicted. Secondly, reality

will demonstrate the contrary, because it would demonstrate higher prison population

rates are in fact innocent (Risinger, 2007).

DNA Technology performed during the appellate cases for the past 25 years had

exonerated more than a dozen individuals (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005; Risinger, 2007).

DNA Technology is also known as DNA Fingerprinting. DNA Technology not

only convicted and exonerated several individuals it also reduced sentencing on

convicted people. For example, a prisoner charged for a federal crime would be proven

innocent, however, would be charged for am lessor crime, which reduces sentencing

(Risinger, 2007).

DNA Evidence and its Fallacies

DNA Technology is not generally perceived as a major role in the generation of

the inequitable within the criminal justice system, but rather, a newer process within the

criminal justice system (Cole, 2007). The agenda is not so much of releasing innocent

prisoners and lifers from the system, but rather, the court convincing the jurors the guilt

of the defendant (Cole, 2007; Garrett, 2007). For example, a prisoner and lifer
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 9

incarcerated for a conviction to a crime they did not commit, however, the prisons

believing the state forensic technician fabrication of blood evidence. As a result, the state

attorney wins a conviction (Garrett, 2007).

According to Cole (2007), purported a framework, which analyzes the input of

technology, which is a new concept of inequality within the criminal justice system (p.

96). There are two basic views of DNA technology: First, is the pessimistic view that

holds the concept how new technology would always harness to benefit both the

powerful, and the wealthy (Cole, 2007). For example, the wealthy and powerful elements

of the court system, corporation, political and wealthy elites manipulating crime by

fabricating evidence to convince a jury of the defense guilt (Cole, 2007). As a result, the

innocence is incarcerated for a crime they did not commit (Cole, 2007).

Once an individual is incarcerated the prisoners they may be convince of a crime

neither he nor she ever committed (Naughton, 2006). If they refute it could result of no

parole or earlier release opportunity, because the prison system is always convince of the

courts decision (Naughton, 2006).

Furthermore, DNA Technology is simply a concept, which creates the ideology

for social control (Cole, 2007). Nowadays, the media convinces the public how DNA

evidence is the key to convict the guilty without explaining true scientific facts of DNA

(Liu & Martin, 2006). For example, DNA analysis examines 13 location of the genomic

strand for repeating sequences of DNA, as well as, mitochondria DNA typing (Murphy,

2007).

According to Murphy (2007) purported, the traditional forensic science in the

criminal justice system creates any new techniques without hesitation, because of the
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 10

fact; it aims to win a conviction (Murphy, 2007). For example, voice exemplars, hair

fiber, teeth marks and fingerprints were intended to target the defendant (Murphy, 2007).

Also, scientific evidence can be debunk if its misused to commit fraudulent acts,

especially, if policing along with the court system either intentionally or unintentionally

tried to convince a court to render a guilty plea against the defendant (Cole, 2007, p.

724).

Secondly, are the optimistic view holds that DNA technology has the power to

level the playing field, such as, recent developments how DNA can exonerate convicts or

prevent primary suspects from conviction (p. 96). Exonerating convicts from the penal

system is not uncommon, however, exonerating any prisoner and-or lifer from the penal

system can be difficult (Cole, 2007, p. 96). For example, for a prisoner or lifer fighting

for his or her innocence may take several years, but if the inmate pleas guilty can

potentially qualify for either early release or parole (Cole, 2007).

DNA evidence is not all negative it does have positive results, for example, a

prisoner and lifer claiming his or her innocence can rely on DNA evidence to exonerate

his or her conviction (Hansen, 2006). In the case of Paul Gregory House who was

convicted for murder and was sentence to death for a murder, which in fact, did not

commit (Hansen, 2006). However, during the trial of Paul House counsel during his trial

did not had the technology to gather DNA evidence, which could had proven his

innocence (Hansen, 2006). Instead, Paul House was found guilty of his murder trial and

convicted. He spent several years incarcerated sitting on death row, until DNA evidence

was finally admitted and approved in federal court (Hansen, 2006).

 DNA Truth and Fallacies 11

Paul House attorney filed several appeals, but each appeal was denied. Until DNA

evidence became available his last appeal was finally granted, which later proved that he

was innocent of a murder, which he was convicted (Hansen, 2006).

The problematic-issue with DNA evidence is not many prisoners and lifers have

the opportunity to pursue (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005). Because of the fact, the expense

of attorney and court fees for an appeal just to claim his or her innocence can be costly

(Hansen, 2006). In addition, if the lower court is to be found in error in sentencing an

individual to serve a lengthy prison sentence and-or death penalty could potentially be

confronted with severe repercussion (Cole, 2007). Therefore, the prosecution could

potentially thwart any evidence that would prove the prisoner and-or lifer claim of

innocence by manipulating DNA evidence (Cole, 2007; Gaaber, 2004, p. 458; Naughton,

2005; Walker, 2003p. 666-667).

In relation to policing and targeting crime policing through governmental

influences tend to pay little attention to credible evidence, which could prove the

innocents of certain societies (Gaaber, 2004). Instead, policing was advised to target

society, which stems the probability for conviction (Gaaber, 2004).

The lack of evidence is what policing would rather focus, because it already been

determined by the U.S. congress that African American and other minority groups

residing within the lower social-economic environment are more aggressive and violent

people (Gaaber, 2004; Walker, 2003). Therefore, lack of credible evidence stems the

likelihood of arrest, perhaps conviction and a lengthy prison sentence (Gaaber, 2004).

DNA evidence if use correctly can determine the innocence of certain inmates,

who in fact, are innocent. However, through political means influences the influential
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 12

prejudicial existing within society, which prolongs prison sentencing and opportunity for

appeals (Walker, 2003). Furthermore, disallowing the equitable opportunity to prevent

DNA evidence, this could prove the defendants innocence (Naughton, 2005). Instead, the

court would allow the state prosecution of presenting DNA evidence to win a conviction

against society (Franceschet, 2004; Hess, 2004; Vernon, 2003). And, as a result, it would

disallow the defense to prove his or her innocence through DNA evidence. Because of

the fact, the court and its jury influence by the state prosecution version of DNA evidence

as credible as the defense (Cole, 2007; Naughton, 2005).

Conclusion

DNA evidence is not as problematic as it may seem, because of the fact it has

exonerated several prisoners and death row inmates. Furthermore, it has linked

defendants to the crime scene, but prior to DNA Technology it would have been difficult

linking criminal or defendants to the crime scene. It had also proven to the criminal

justice community that some prisoners and death row inmates were convicted on faulty

evidence.

Faulty evidence was later determined as weak evidence to win a conviction, for

example, eyewitness accounts, poor police and court investigation. However, DNA

Technology shifted the perspective of the criminal justice community, because DNA

provided solid scientific evidence. Whereas, police and court investigation relied on

eyewitness accounts, finger prints in the crime scene, and other witnesses benefiting the

criminal justice system.

 DNA Truth and Fallacies 13

Furthermore, prior to DNA technology policing and the court system relied on the

traditional fingerprint card, which only provided certain amount of information. The

certain information provided was linking any potential suspect to the crime scene, also,

the potential suspect’s background and criminal history, which still provided limited

information. For example, several death row inmates were convicted on rape and murder

charges, because of eyewitness accounts and the individual’s background that was

associated to the victim. But, through DNA evidence, which later proved that the

bloodstain did NOT match the blood sample of the prisoner, nor were the previous

eyewitness, accounts accurate. Furthermore, it has lead to other investigation, which later

prove who actually committed the offense.

An English Scientist named Alec J. Jeffreys discovered DNA Technology. It was

originally used to study the genetic make up of pea plants, but little was known of its

future outcome. In other words, the concept of studying genetic make of a pea plant could

also be utilized in the genetic make up of humans. For example, DNA consists of billion

of molecules, however, only a small portion is required to link a suspect to a crime scene.

In the past 25 years DNA Technology has brought famed to the criminal justice

community. It has provided hope to society by means that was previously unimagined.

However, DNA Technology can be manipulated, because of the fact; it can be distorted

through scientific means to win a conviction. In the courtroom there are other factors

involved, which can be favorable to both prosecution and the defense. In the case of O.J

Simpson DNA evidence was utilized to prove his innocence, however, physical evidence

was tampered during his trial. As a result, the evidence that could have been used against

O.J. Simpson was later inadmissible in court. This lead to a wide range of speculation and
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 14

theories, which suggested DNA technology would have discovered without the tampering

of evidence.

References

Butler, B., Moran, G. (2007). The Role of Death Qualification and Needs for Cognition
in
Venirepresents’ Evaluation of Expert Scientific Testimony in Capital Trials.
Behavriol Science and the Law, Vol. 25, p. 561.571.

Coker, D. (2003). Addressing the real world of racial injustice in the criminal justice
system. The journal on criminal law and criminology, Vol. 93, No. 4.

Cole, S.A. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA
technology on equal criminal justice. Science and Public Policing, Vol. 34(2), p.
95-107.

Coyne, S.M. & Archer, J., (2005). Social Development. Blackwell Publishing
Ltd., 14 (2), 324-328.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eckler, R (2006). I was Lindsay Lohan’s Tutor, 120 (11), 44-44

Franceschet, A. (2004). The Rule of Law, Inequality, and the international Criminal
Court. Alternative Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, Issue 1, p. 23-42.

Gaber, T. (2004). Inflammatory Rhetoric on Racial Profiling Can Undermine Police

Service. Department of Criminology, Vol. 46, Issue 4, pg. 457-463.

Gaarder, E., Rodriguez, N., Zatz, M.S. (2004). Crimes, Liars, and Manipulators:
Probation Officers Views of Girls, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 547-576.

Hansen, M. (2006). Doubt and DNA. ABA Journal, Vol. 92(9), p. 14-15.

Hess, B. (2004). Im/Pplausible Deniability: Racism Conceptual Double Bind. Social

Identity, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 9-29.

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical Research: Planning and design (8th. Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson & Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Liu, Y., Martin, K. (2006). Sliding into Home: Facilitated p53 search for targets by the
basin DNA binding domain. Cell Death and Differentiation, Vol. 13, p. 881-884.
 DNA Truth and Fallacies 15

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology:

Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (2nd.
Ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Naughton, M. (2005). Why the failure of the prison services and the parole board to
acknowledge wrongful imprisonment is untenable. The Harvard Journal, Vol, 44,
No. 11, pp. 1-11.

Neuman, W.L. (2003). Science and research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Boston, MA. Allyn & Bacon.

Risinger, D.M. (2007). Innocents Convicted: An Empirically Justified Wrongful

Conviction Rate. A Journal of criminal law & Criminology, Vol. 97, No. 3, p.
767-806.

Sunshine, J., Tyler, T.R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in
Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law and Society Review, Vol. 37, No. 3.

Walker, B.A. (2003). The Color of Crime: The Case Against Race-Based Suspect
Descriptions, Vol. 103-662, p. 662-688.