DNA Evidence In The NSW Criminal Justice System
Discuss the legal implications of the use of DNA evidence in the
NSW criminal justice system
DNA evidence is a widely used tool in the NSW criminal justice system that aims to help achieve justice. DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, is a long molecule found within the cells of the human body. Each cell contains genetic material in which, apart from identical twins, is exclusive to every individual. DNA though considered a reliable piece of evidence can present many issues in the criminal justice system such as its influence on juries, the issue of maintaining the balance of an individual’s rights with the state’s responsibilities and the issues of DNA contamination, storage and interpretation. These issues will be discussed later. …show more content…
Dr Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (2006, p. 14) states that “the techniques of forensic science are the techniques of reconstructing the past.” The ability to reconstruct the past enables the jury and the judge to properly establish the guilt or innocence of the accused with supporting evidence.
In the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW), this legislation aims to regulate the manner in which forensic samples are obtained and ensures the state’s responsibility to enforce the law does not impinge on an individual’s rights for e.g. their right to privacy. The Act allows for select police powers to undertake forensic procedures on suspects, offenders and volunteers and also allows for further investigations in cases to be made which can be later used as evidence in trials.
A type of procedure that is most commonly presented in trials is DNA profiling. DNA profiling is a type of identification testing. The testing uses DNA samples taken from suspects or the crime scene to generate a person’s profile. A match can therefore statistically prove the likelihood of that sample’s relation to the suspect or crime …show more content…
Due to the complexity of forensic science, DNA evidence has been overlooked by juries and assumed as infallible. However, in some cases prosecutors have failed to inform juries of the failings of DNA evidence thus juries remain blinded to the errors of DNA. Studies have shown that this impact strongly affects the convictions of individuals. This impact known as the ‘CSI effect’ in which the Director of Civil Liberties Australia, Tim Vines, explains to be, “Where juries will consider DNA evidence a stronger form of proof over any other because of what is presented to them in the media.” has strongly impacted many convictions including the Jama case. Television programs such as, CSI, have created the notion that forensic science in particular DNA evidence is beyond doubt infallible and accurate. However, Dr Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (2006, p. 30) states “Contrary to some popular beliefs, science is a highly uncertain endeavour. It does not deal in certainties, but probabilities.” DNA evidence is based solely on probabilities. A jury’s assumption that the DNA evidence presented before them is infallible, free of contamination, exaggeration, misinterpretation etc. only increases the risk of a wrongful conviction and furthermore failure to achieve justice through the criminal justice
NSW criminal justice system
DNA evidence is a widely used tool in the NSW criminal justice system that aims to help achieve justice. DNA, short for deoxyribonucleic acid, is a long molecule found within the cells of the human body. Each cell contains genetic material in which, apart from identical twins, is exclusive to every individual. DNA though considered a reliable piece of evidence can present many issues in the criminal justice system such as its influence on juries, the issue of maintaining the balance of an individual’s rights with the state’s responsibilities and the issues of DNA contamination, storage and interpretation. These issues will be discussed later. …show more content…
Dr Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (2006, p. 14) states that “the techniques of forensic science are the techniques of reconstructing the past.” The ability to reconstruct the past enables the jury and the judge to properly establish the guilt or innocence of the accused with supporting evidence.
In the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW), this legislation aims to regulate the manner in which forensic samples are obtained and ensures the state’s responsibility to enforce the law does not impinge on an individual’s rights for e.g. their right to privacy. The Act allows for select police powers to undertake forensic procedures on suspects, offenders and volunteers and also allows for further investigations in cases to be made which can be later used as evidence in trials.
A type of procedure that is most commonly presented in trials is DNA profiling. DNA profiling is a type of identification testing. The testing uses DNA samples taken from suspects or the crime scene to generate a person’s profile. A match can therefore statistically prove the likelihood of that sample’s relation to the suspect or crime …show more content…
Due to the complexity of forensic science, DNA evidence has been overlooked by juries and assumed as infallible. However, in some cases prosecutors have failed to inform juries of the failings of DNA evidence thus juries remain blinded to the errors of DNA. Studies have shown that this impact strongly affects the convictions of individuals. This impact known as the ‘CSI effect’ in which the Director of Civil Liberties Australia, Tim Vines, explains to be, “Where juries will consider DNA evidence a stronger form of proof over any other because of what is presented to them in the media.” has strongly impacted many convictions including the Jama case. Television programs such as, CSI, have created the notion that forensic science in particular DNA evidence is beyond doubt infallible and accurate. However, Dr Zakaria Erzinçlioglu (2006, p. 30) states “Contrary to some popular beliefs, science is a highly uncertain endeavour. It does not deal in certainties, but probabilities.” DNA evidence is based solely on probabilities. A jury’s assumption that the DNA evidence presented before them is infallible, free of contamination, exaggeration, misinterpretation etc. only increases the risk of a wrongful conviction and furthermore failure to achieve justice through the criminal justice