Download Electronic organizer student example

Matt Isaacs
Galloway
Senior English
10 February 2015
10 Annotated Sources
Source 1:
Norrgard, K. (2008). Forensics, DNA fingerprinting, and codis. Retrieved from Natu
Education: http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/forensics-dna-fingerprinting-andcodis-736
This website gives a lot of information about how DNA identification works and what all is
involved in the science behind it. This site has a lot of data charts and it explains how DNA
identification works and why it can be useful, but sometimes inaccurate. This site will be very
useful for the current situation part of my paper.
Source 2:
Thompson, W. (n.d.).The potential for error in forensic DNA testing. Retrieved from Council for
Responsible Genetics website:
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId
=57
This website describes in great detail about DNA identification and the errors that can occur
during the DNA identification process. It talks about the National DNA Index System and how it
used when is needed during investigation. Also explains how the NDIS is referenced during
court cases. Will be very useful for the current situation part of my paper.
Source 3:
Silverstein, J. (2013, March 27). The dark side of DNA evidence. The Nation. Retrieved from
http://www.thenation.com/article/173554/dark-side-dna-evidence#
Talks about how DNA identification is used by the police and what happens once DNA is in the
NDIS. Explains different points of view on the NDIS system and how people are affected by it.
Goes into detail about how the NDIS is abused by police and other organizations. Will be a good
source for the current situation part and the differing viewpoint part of my paper.
Source 4:
DNA identification act (1994). Issues: understanding controversy and society. Retrieved from
ABC-CLIO database.
This is the database with the DNA law that I am using. Really detailed a little hard to read
through though, but it is information filled. Very good source to be used in the policy
identification and explanation part of my paper.
Source 5:
The history of DNA. (n.d.). Retrieved from Prophase genetics: http://www.prophasegenetics.com/history_dna_paternity.html
This site is a detailed timeline of the history of DNA from 1865-2000. Looks like a good and
reliable source, I like it a lot, easy to read. Would be great for history and background of my
paper.
Source 6:
DNA analysis. (n.d.). Retrived from PBS website:
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/dna-analysis/
Short article about history of DNA analysis. Looks useful, good information, but really short.
Would be good for the history and background part of my essay.
Source 7:
The national DNA database system. (n.d.). Retrieved from Find Law:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-national-dna-database-system.html
States the NDIS as the National DNA database system, talks about history of what the NDIS was
originally used for. Would be good for the history and background of my paper.
Source 8:
Frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the codis program and the national DNA index system
(n.d.). Retrieved from The Federal Bureau of investigation website:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet
This website is filled with frequently asked questions about the NDIS. It looks like a really good
site. Good for background and current situation.
Source 9:
National DNA index system. (2009, January 23). Retrieved from Federal Bureau of
Investigation website: http://www.archives.gov/records-
mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-justice/rg-0065/n1-065-06009_sf115.pdf
The actual document that is the National DNA Index System. Contains rules and how it works.
Would be very useful for policy identification and explanation.
Source 10:
National DNA index system (ndis) operational procedures manual. (2015). Retrieved from
Federal Bureau of Investigation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometricanalysis/codis/ndis-procedures-manual
This paper is about background and current situation about DNA identification. Looks like a
good site. Would work for background, current situation, and policy identification of my paper.
Policy Identification and Explanation
The DNA Identification Act was first introduced to Congress in 1993 and signed into law by
President Bill Clinton on November 13, 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act, one of the most comprehensive federal crime bills in U.S. history. The DNA
Identification Act authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to create the National DNA
Index System (NDIS), a national database containing DNA samples from convicted criminals,
crime scenes, and unidentified human remains. NDIS is a collaboration between federal, state,
and local criminal justice agencies. The bill reflects the significant role of DNA technology in
forensic science. (Source 4)
Please note that these questions and responses refer specifically to the National DNA Index
System; state DNA databases operate in accordance with the applicable state law and questions
concerning the operation of a particular state DNA database should be directed to that state.
(Source 8)
The DNA Identification Act of 1994 (DNA Identification Act), a Part of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, formalized the FBI's authority to establish a national
DNA Index System for law enforcement purposes (see 42 USC § 14132(a). In October 1998 the FBI's National DNA Index System (NDIS) became operational with initially nine states
participating in NDIS. (Source 9)
The Federal DNA Identification Act, enacted in 1994, authorized the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to establish a national identification index of DNA records. At
that time, the FBI was developing software and a program for the storage and exchange of DNA
records among forensic DNA laboratories. The Federal DNA Act formalized these FBI efforts
and also provided funding for the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) program and
grants to State and Local forensic DNA laboratories to participate in CODIS. (Source10)
History/Background (prior to the passage of the policy)
The following is a brief history of DNA discovery, analysis, and testing. Highlighted are the
significant advances over the last 140 years that evolved into the DNA testing industry and the
paternity testing information available today. (Source 5)
Traditional genealogy follows a chain of genetic links from generation to generation. If a link is
erased, DNA testing can sometimes restore the bond. (Source 6)
The national DNA database system allows law enforcement officers around the country to
compare forensic evidence to a central repository of DNA information. In this way, officers can
better determine the identity of a suspect based on biological crime scene evidence. (Source 7)
Current Situation (after the policy was passed)
Those people opposed to DNA banking for law enforcement purposes note that arrestees are
often found innocent of crimes. Retention of an innocent person's DNA can be seen as an
intrusion of personal privacy and a violation of civil liberties. It is interesting to note that in the
United States, under any other circumstance, the provision of a DNA sample would require
informed consent and other protections for the donor. In contrast, an arrestee's DNA profile, once
entered into a database, can be accessed by police, forensic scientists, or researchers without the
consent of the donor. Another problem with the DNA database system is an exacerbation of the
ethnic bias already present in the criminal justice system. If people from one ethnic group are
more often arrested, tried, and convicted of felonies, they will be overrepresented in the database,
potentially leading to even more arrests within that ethnic group. (Source 1)
Currently, twenty-eight states and federal law enforcement collect DNA upon arrest—when a
person is still presumed innocent. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito called it “perhaps
the most important criminal procedure case that this Court has heard in decades.” (Source 3)
Differing Viewpoints:
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Maryland argues that collecting DNA is no more invasive
than its twentieth-century counterpart, the fingerprint. But King and opposing groups filing
friend of the court, or amicus, briefs respond that unlike fingerprints, DNA is a trove of personal,
medical and ancestral information. What’s more, DNA solves cases far less frequently than the
state suggests. In 2011, Maryland police collected 10,666 DNA samples; only nineteen led to an
arrest. The state’s interest is thus not identification but investigation—and the Court has never
permitted suspicionless searches of suspects without a warrant. If it does in King, there will be
no principle limiting when our DNA may be collected in the name of fighting crime. (Source 3)
People have been prosecuted based on cold hits to partial profiles. Defendants in cold-hit cases
often face a difficult dilemma. In order to explain to the jury that the incriminating DNA match
arose from a database search (in which the government had thousands or millions of
opportunities to find a matching profile), the defendant must admit that his profile was in the
database, which in many states entails admitting to being a felon, a fact that might otherwise be
inadmissible. Courts in some cold-hit cases have, at the urging of defense counsel, opted to leave
the jury in the dark about the database search in order to avoid the implication of a criminal
record. Jurors are told about the DNA match, but are not told how the match was discovered.
The danger of this strategy is that jurors may underestimate the probability of a false
incrimination because they assume the authorities must have had good reason to test the
defendant's DNA in the first place. In other words, jurors may mistakenly assume the DNA test
compared the crime scene sample to the DNA of a single individual who was already the focus
of suspicion (a circumstance under which the risk of a coincidental false incrimination is
extremely low) and not realize that the defendant was identified through a cold hit (a
circumstance under which the risk of a coincidental false incrimination is much higher).
(Source 2)
Policy Recommendation
People have been prosecuted based on cold hits to partial profiles. Defendants in cold-hit cases
often face a difficult dilemma. In order to explain to the jury that the incriminating DNA match
arose from a database search (in which the government had thousands or millions of
opportunities to find a matching profile), the defendant must admit that his profile was in the
database, which in many states entails admitting to being a felon, a fact that might otherwise be
inadmissible. Courts in some cold-hit cases have, at the urging of defense counsel, opted to leave
the jury in the dark about the database search in order to avoid the implication of a criminal
record. Jurors are told about the DNA match, but are not told how the match was discovered.
The danger of this strategy is that jurors may underestimate the probability of a false
incrimination because they assume the authorities must have had good reason to test the
defendant's DNA in the first place. In other words, jurors may mistakenly assume the DNA test
compared the crime scene sample to the DNA of a single individual who was already the focus
of suspicion (a circumstance under which the risk of a coincidental false incrimination is
extremely low) and not realize that the defendant was identified through a cold hit (a
circumstance under which the risk of a coincidental false incrimination is much higher).
(Source 2)
The In its petition to the Supreme Court, Maryland argues that collecting DNA is no more
invasive than its twentieth-century counterpart, the fingerprint. But King and opposing groups
filing friend of the court, or amicus, briefs respond that unlike fingerprints, DNA is a trove of
personal, medical and ancestral information. What’s more, DNA solves cases far less frequently
than the state suggests. In 2011, Maryland police collected 10,666 DNA samples; only nineteen
led to an arrest. The state’s interest is thus not identification but investigation—and the Court has
never
permitted suspicionless searches of suspects without a warrant. If it does in King, there
will be no principle limiting when our DNA may be collected in the name of fighting crime.
(Source 3)
Federal DNA Identification Act, enacted in 1994, authorized the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) to establish a national identification index of DNA records. At that time,
the FBI was developing software and a program for the storage and exchange of DNA records
among forensic DNA laboratories. The Federal DNA Act formalized these FBI efforts and also
provided funding for the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) program and grants to
State and Local forensic DNA laboratories to participate in CODIS. (Source10)