Deoxyribonucleic Acid is the molecule within human cells that holds all our genetic material (Genetics Home Reference, 2017). DNA can be found in all cells of the body except red blood cells and can be collected from hair follicles, blood, skin, bodily fluids, bone marrow, tissues etc (GHR, 2017). In criminal cases, DNA is used as evidence to prove whether a person was connected with a crime. If a person’s DNA is found at a crime scene, they become a suspect in an investigation. The use of DNA as evidence has challenged traditional legal principles and processes. However, the analysis of DNA has not come far enough to be the only evidence needed for conviction in criminal cases. Using circumstantial DNA evidence can have major effects on stakeholders
…show more content…
The most pressing issues surrounding DNA evidence are transferring DNA, contamination of the sample, alternative explanations for a match and timing of the sample. Section 302-318L of the Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act 2003 outlines all the legislation in Queensland surrounding DNA in the justice system (PPRA, 2003). It states that DNA samples may only be taken by “(a) having the person use a mouth swab to swab the person’s mouth; or (b) collecting hair, including roots of the hair, from the person” (PPRA, Section 305, 2003). There is no legislation detailing how DNA can be used as …show more content…
When a case has issues with DNA evidence, it taints many other cases. If questions are raised about the reliability of DNA evidence in one case, others may start to ask the same things. Can we really trust DNA evidence?
In murder trials, there are two elements that must be proven: guilty act (Actus reas) and guilty mind (Mens rea) (Avery, 2017). DNA as evidence can only prove Actus Reas, it is impossible for those samples to prove Mens Rea. This means that circumstantial DNA evidence legally cannot be the sole deciding factor of guilt. However, this has not been the case for some individuals.
Daniel Fitzgerald was convicted of murder in 2014 after his DNA was found on a didgeridoo at the crime scene. Fitzgerald stated that he was not present during the attack but had been at the crime scene and had contact with someone who was present during the attack. He maintains that his DNA was transferred onto the didgeridoo after a handshake with a man who was later in the house (Marcus, 2014). Solicitor Matthew Selley stated that “Some people…are more prone to shedding skin cells than others.” This indicates that the transfer of DNA is highly possible and therefore highly variable. The possibility of transferring DNA is an issue as it cannot be proven how or when the DNA sample was
The most pressing issues surrounding DNA evidence are transferring DNA, contamination of the sample, alternative explanations for a match and timing of the sample. Section 302-318L of the Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act 2003 outlines all the legislation in Queensland surrounding DNA in the justice system (PPRA, 2003). It states that DNA samples may only be taken by “(a) having the person use a mouth swab to swab the person’s mouth; or (b) collecting hair, including roots of the hair, from the person” (PPRA, Section 305, 2003). There is no legislation detailing how DNA can be used as …show more content…
When a case has issues with DNA evidence, it taints many other cases. If questions are raised about the reliability of DNA evidence in one case, others may start to ask the same things. Can we really trust DNA evidence?
In murder trials, there are two elements that must be proven: guilty act (Actus reas) and guilty mind (Mens rea) (Avery, 2017). DNA as evidence can only prove Actus Reas, it is impossible for those samples to prove Mens Rea. This means that circumstantial DNA evidence legally cannot be the sole deciding factor of guilt. However, this has not been the case for some individuals.
Daniel Fitzgerald was convicted of murder in 2014 after his DNA was found on a didgeridoo at the crime scene. Fitzgerald stated that he was not present during the attack but had been at the crime scene and had contact with someone who was present during the attack. He maintains that his DNA was transferred onto the didgeridoo after a handshake with a man who was later in the house (Marcus, 2014). Solicitor Matthew Selley stated that “Some people…are more prone to shedding skin cells than others.” This indicates that the transfer of DNA is highly possible and therefore highly variable. The possibility of transferring DNA is an issue as it cannot be proven how or when the DNA sample was