caused many problems within the legal profession. It is no longer enough.
for attorneys or members of the jury to merely be knowledgeable about the.
law. People need to familiarize themselves with today's scientific.
research rather than relying on the credentials of a scientific expert.
witness. Too often, jury members become in awe of the complicated,.
scientific terms used in court and take a scientist's testimony as fact. .
Lawyers need to increase their scientific knowledge and keep up with.
ongoing research in order to competently question and understand.
scientific evidence put forth.
But these do not represent the only possible downfalls of DNA profiling.
in criminology. The involuntary seizure of one's blood or hair undermines.
the constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Fourth.
Amendment (protection from unreasonable searches and seizures). .
Nevertheless, many argue that a DNA sample taken from a suspect could lead.
to an indictment or release of the individual and, thus, warrants an.
exception from the Fourth Amendment. Besides, one could make a plausible.
argument that, once held in custody, the seizure of a person's strand of.
hair does not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights or rights of.
privacy because the hair is visible.
However, the use of DNA profiling does not end in criminal.
investigations. DNA testing has ventured out of the courtroom in an.
effort to show a genetic link between race and violent tendencies. If.
successful, this link will do nothing but justify prejudice attitudes.
toward minorities, particularly the black race. Furthermore, such.
biological approaches towards criminality do not take into account.
sociological factors, such as poverty, and would inevitably lead to the.
practice of controlling minority children with the use of therapeutic.
drugs or worse. For this and other reasons, courts of all levels must.
implement harsher scrutiny in the area of genetic profiling and its uses.
