Advanced Forensics vs. Traditional Investigation
Criminalistics CJ 312
Professor Douglas Scheffner
July 28, 2010
Technology has allowed our world to become much more advanced. This was never truer than in the field of forensic science. There was a time where the only evidence introduced at trials was the murder weapon and the testimony of an eyewitness. Now we have DNA, hair, fiber, and soil samples to analyze. We rely on forensics when decomposed bodies or skeletal remains are found to provide an identity and a cause and time of death. The field of Criminalistics has definitely come a long way from just questioning suspects but this still remains a critical part of any investigation. It can be said that forensic science provides amazing answers but the results can never have 100% certainty due to human error. Traditional investigative methods must go hand in hand with forensic analysis in the process of ensuring that all possible evidence is acquired and a jury has proper information to make a fair decision.
Forensic evidence provides many answers to questions that would otherwise remain a mystery. We can take the example of forensic anthropology, or the study of human remains. Sometimes the remains are skeletal or so badly decomposed that it is impossible to even identify the victim until an examination is done by a forensic anthropologist. As we learned in chapter 1 of our text, studying remains as well as the insects and soil found in and around a human body can determine a time and cause of death. This is important information useful in finding and convicting a suspect.
Every case is different, but evidence is always required to prove guilt. Forensic science has become so evolved that traditional methods might be seen as out dated; this shouldn’t be the case. Interrogating a suspect should be just as important as submitting a DNA sample. No case should rely solely on one or the other. If we consider...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document