What if DNA fingerprinting also helped reduce crime? DNA fingerprinting has absolved the falsely accused and locked away the guilty. It also convicts the “rightly accused earlier in the process, which spares taxpayers the cost and victims the angst of lengthy trials” (“DNA Testing…” B4). This reduces crime in that would-be killers pause and think if they would be caught sooner of later. A prospective killer would know that just a spot of blood or saliva, or maybe even some dead skins cells (which sheds many times a day) can seal his guilt and lock him up (“DNA Testing…” B4). Then any killers that would be left would be the criminals who do not care or the mentally insane that just do not know what they are doing. The Justice Department hopes to further the testing. And, since it is not inexpensive, “the Justice Department will devote another $100 million to further reduce the testing backlog” (“DNA Testing…” B4). Hopefully that will be enough to continue testing for another few years. With testing comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes the trust in DNA fingerprinting and how it helps today’s society.

Suppose Kirk Bloodsworth was guilty. How would one know for a fact? DNA fingerprinting helps investigators link a suspect to the scene of a crime. According to Harlan Levy, Assistant District Attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, DNA evidence made the 1984 case against Martin Perez, a thirty-seven-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who raped and killed a twenty-three-year-old woman named Jean Ann Broderick. “Broderick’s murder would never have been solved without a DNA date base” (Levy 125-28). Levy also states that DNA fingerprinting can assist in false accusations, just like Bloodsworth’s case.

With all of the advantages and the disadvantages of DNA technology, it is really difficult to say whether or not DNA fingerprinting will always be used in court. The main controversy is if the judge will allow DNA fingerprinting to be used in court. Many cases seem to be solved with the aid of DNA fingerprinting, and there are many successful cases locking away the guilty and absolving the innocent. Defense Attorneys would love if they won a case because of DNA fingerprinting. Even the client would be satisfied for not having to spend their lifetime in prison. But the real decision to use this helpful technology is up to the Supreme Court and the judges, not the attorneys and the clients. The government cannot decide either, since it is a state law to use this evidence. Some skeptics say DNA fingerprinting is not even reliable. Scientists cannot just do more testing because of the costs. The innocent also hope to have DNA fingerprinting to prove their innocence.

Bloodsworth’s case is common for homicide detectives. On August 17, 1990, John Davis was arrested for the raping and assaults of Carol Sanders, his “on-again, off-again” girlfriend. He pleaded innocent and agreed on a blood test (Levy 94-95). On December 19, 1990, an FBI agent called the prosecutor’s office and informed them that the semen sample taken from Carol Sanders was not that of John Davis (Levy 96). Earlier that autumn, Davis told police about Greg Ritter, an unemployed Baltimore bricklayer who had dated Carol Sander’s roommate. Ritter looked very similar to Davis. Although Sanders was certain her attacker was Davis, police had new evidence to believe Ritter was Carol’s rapist. Ritter had blamed Sanders for the breakup between Ritter and

Some topics in this essay:
B4 Hopefully, Court Appeals, Advocates DNA, Barry Scheck, Kirk Bloodsworth, Davis Ritter, Testing…” B4, Supreme Court, dna fingerprinting, Easterbrook DNA, Carol Sanders, campbell 100, meltzer 35, davis ritter, evans 64, “dna testing…” b4, chest hair, dna testing, “dna testing…”, testing…” b4, advantages disadvantages, dna fingerprinting assist, society dna fingerprinting, dna fingerprinting court, dna fingerprinting helps,