Forensic Evidence History
The world of crime has been around for thousands of years, with no way or form to properly solve these crime, many innocent people were framed into being thought guilty, and in return getting punished. That all changed at the beginning of the 19th century with the introduction of forensic science. Forensic science was a new way to solve crimes with DNA evidence to get the correct criminal rightfully punished. In this paper I will go over how forensic science evidence developed over time, how the advancement of DNA made things easier in the courtroom, and finally what the projected future is for forensic science and DNA evidence. There is one question that I want answered at the end of this paper, and that is how does forensic science
…show more content…
According to Donald Shelton who is the author of Forensic Science Evidence: Can the Law Keep up with Science at that time the courthouses would allow so called “experts” into the courtroom to give options about issues that had previously been left exclusively to the jury, mostly identification through fingerprints and details of death or injury through medical testimony. The main way to get someone identified as a suspect was a finger print test, but as time went on and people started using finger prints to frame people the courts started using the “who” question in testimonies. According to Shelton “this was based on the experience and presumed expertise of witness in such areas as handwriting comparisons, microscopic hair comparison, blood comparison, and bite mark comparisons”(7). This was an effective way to get 100% certainty of who did the crime, it was very …show more content…
It has already come so far from where it started two centuries ago. The way it has developed into the legal system to make cases and evidence in those cases more efficient and effective, but with any system there is always something that meet the standards. Shelton states that “it is clear that there is a sizable proportion of forensic identification evidence that is failing to meet evidentiary standards in U.S. courts”(214). Even though forensic evidence has been extremely useful and seem almost full proof, there is always room for something to get better, and in this case the system of forensic evidence has to meet up with the standards of the U.S. courts better, making cases easier to solve and get a verdict. According to John Butler author of U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science and international standards in forensic DNA, there have been efforts by the White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science; who has a partnership with Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), these departments are “seeking to improve policies and practices of forensic science. Efforts to fund research activities and aid technology transition and training in forensic science are also covered.” This basically explains that there are plenty of people willing to help make the department of forensic
According to Donald Shelton who is the author of Forensic Science Evidence: Can the Law Keep up with Science at that time the courthouses would allow so called “experts” into the courtroom to give options about issues that had previously been left exclusively to the jury, mostly identification through fingerprints and details of death or injury through medical testimony. The main way to get someone identified as a suspect was a finger print test, but as time went on and people started using finger prints to frame people the courts started using the “who” question in testimonies. According to Shelton “this was based on the experience and presumed expertise of witness in such areas as handwriting comparisons, microscopic hair comparison, blood comparison, and bite mark comparisons”(7). This was an effective way to get 100% certainty of who did the crime, it was very …show more content…
It has already come so far from where it started two centuries ago. The way it has developed into the legal system to make cases and evidence in those cases more efficient and effective, but with any system there is always something that meet the standards. Shelton states that “it is clear that there is a sizable proportion of forensic identification evidence that is failing to meet evidentiary standards in U.S. courts”(214). Even though forensic evidence has been extremely useful and seem almost full proof, there is always room for something to get better, and in this case the system of forensic evidence has to meet up with the standards of the U.S. courts better, making cases easier to solve and get a verdict. According to John Butler author of U.S. initiatives to strengthen forensic science and international standards in forensic DNA, there have been efforts by the White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Forensic Science; who has a partnership with Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), these departments are “seeking to improve policies and practices of forensic science. Efforts to fund research activities and aid technology transition and training in forensic science are also covered.” This basically explains that there are plenty of people willing to help make the department of forensic