* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 10 Annotated Sources Example
Survey
Document related concepts
Eukaryotic DNA replication wikipedia , lookup
Zinc finger nuclease wikipedia , lookup
DNA sequencing wikipedia , lookup
DNA repair protein XRCC4 wikipedia , lookup
Homologous recombination wikipedia , lookup
DNA replication wikipedia , lookup
DNA polymerase wikipedia , lookup
DNA nanotechnology wikipedia , lookup
DNA profiling wikipedia , lookup
Microsatellite wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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 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 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# Source 4: DNA identification act (1994). Issues: understanding controversy and society. Retrieved from ABC-CLIO database. Source 5: The history of DNA. (n.d.). Retrieved from Prophase genetics: http://www.prophasegenetics.com/history_dna_paternity.html Source 6: DNA analysis. (n.d.). Retrived from PBS website: http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/technique/dna-analysis/ 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 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 Source 9: National DNA index system. (2009, January 23). Retrieved from Federal Bureau of Investigation website: http://www.archives.gov/recordsmgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-justice/rg-0065/n1-065-06009_sf115.pdf 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 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) Miscellaneous: /10 1 point per credible, vetted source /40 4 points per source. You have clearly read and understood your source as shown by: Pulling 3-4 facts from that source Paraphrasing most facts o Direct quotes are acceptable but should be WORTH direct quoting Planning how to use that piece of information by placing into a specific section of the paper