http://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/afis/articles/100353/
Sherman, Mark. "FBI checking database to make sure it is matching fugitives." Associated Press http://www.policeone.com.
As crime investigation technology continues to improve, a growing trend is the integration of vast databases of biometric and other identification information, to aid in the fast identification of suspects. The largest database of biometric information is the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS.
IAFIS is a database of biometric information on 47 million individuals. The information is all voluntarily submitted to the FBI from local, state, and federal law enforcement.
The database is used for many purposes. Law enforcement officials can use it to search for matches for fingerprints or other information found at a crime scene, in order to identify possible criminals. It also allows law enforcement officials to identify someone who has already been arrested, to see if they have had a prior history of crimes or if they are already wanted for crimes. The database is also used for civil reasons. Employers can submit queries to the database in order to do background searches for prospective employees, making sure they are honest in their applications and will be productive employees.
The database represented a vast improvement over previous methods of fingerprint identification. Prior to its implementation, fingerprint identification was a slow, painstaking process involving the physical creation and transportation of fingerprint cards. The digitalization of these allowed checks to be made in mere hours instead of days.
The article discusses a high profile case in which the system failed to identify the fingerprints of a wanted fugitive, who later went on to murder three women. However, I feel that the system overall remains incredibly accurate for a system incorporating tens of millions of individuals. It is still a step up from what was previously used.
Although the database vastly improves the efficiency of checking and aids in the investigation of crimes, there is still great controversy over it. One of the greatest debates is over who should be included in such a database. As of now the database includes individuals who are added to it by law enforcements. This means that all of the people in the database have been arrested and/or possible convicted of a crime. However, this system limits the database to those who have had prior criminal history. People who are first time offenders cannot be identified in the database. Some argue that the database should be expanded to include more people, possibly everyone. While this would lead to more accuracy and likelihood of identification, it would also require completely innocent people to be put into the database. Therefore they would have a greater likelihood of being identified even if they were innocent, and would have to explain what their fingerprints were doing at a crime scene.
The article also mentions how fingerprints found on a shopping bag near the train bombings in Madrid were mistakenly believed to be from a Portland lawyer. This illustrates the risk of expanding the database to a greater part of the population.
However, I feel that the expansion of the database to include a greater part of the general population would be beneficial. While innocent people might be called in for questioning or investigating because their fingerprints were identified from the database, I believe that the added ability to identify first time offenders would be greatly beneficial. After all, everyone is a first time offender once, and the requirement that someone has to have committed a crime before they can be identified using the database greatly hampers the identification of a suspect via fingerprinting.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Forensics and Justice
From today's Seattle Times, the story of a man (perhaps) wrongly convicted of murder because a forensic "expert" deliberately lied to help the prosecution.
Former Baltimore police Sgt. James A. Kulbicki stared silently from the defense table as the prosecutor held up his off-duty. 38-caliber revolver and assured jurors that science proved the gun had been used to kill Kulbicki's mistress...Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland's top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki's gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki.
The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole...
Then the scientific evidence unraveled.
Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime.
The technology used to convict Mr. Kulbicki turned out to have been over-hyped, as it seems forensic technologies touted by over-eager law enforcement and government entities often are.
For more than three decades, bureau experts had testified that they could tie bullets or bullet fragments from crime scenes to suspects by comparing the lead content to bullets in an ammunition box or in a gun recovered from a suspect.
In 2005, the FBI abruptly stopped using the technique after studies — including one by the National Academy of Sciences — found that FBI witnesses had inappropriately suggested to jurors that they could match bullets to specific boxes or guns.
Perhaps a cautionary tale as we discuss exciting developments in forensic science?
CSI good for you, bad for you
The upside of the proliferation of detective shows like CSI, Cold Case, and others has perhaps been that the average TV viewer might have learned a few tidbits about science. The shows at least attempt to model reality, but they have no reservations about bending it to make a better plot. A little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all, you might say.
An Irish forensic scientist told the BBC the show is unrealistic because it implies that crimes can frequently be solved in the course of just one television episode, when the actual case is that crimes are much more difficult and time-consuming to solve.
An Irish forensic scientist told the BBC the show is unrealistic because it implies that crimes can frequently be solved in the course of just one television episode, when the actual case is that crimes are much more difficult and time-consuming to solve.
The leading scientist said such representations fostered a presumption that "the answers we supply are black and white, but of course there's a grey area".
Gary Sinise and Melina Kanakaredes star in CSI:NYIn reality, "we don't fit it in (in) 47 minutes, and the roles are not all rolled into one", she said.
Many forensic scientists specialised in chemistry, biology, DNA, drugs or pattern evidence, she told delegates.
I think Dr. Willis (the scientist's name) overestimates the problem. I don't think the average television viewer takes everything quite so literally.
Forensic Toxicology
http://press.appliedbiosystems.com/corpcomm/applerapress.nsf/ABIDisplayPress/8B1EAC0EB0BED97888257375001345E5?OpenDocument&type=abi
Petrucci, Anthony. "New Forensic Toxicology Application from Applied Biosystems/MDS SCIEX Improves Accuracy of Screening for Drugs of Abuse." Applied Biosystems Press Release 15 10 2007
As the number of drugs and pharmaceuticals continues to grow, the technology used to identify them must improve as well. The need for fast and accurate analysis of substances in the investigation of crimes fuels much of this need for constantly improving technology. As forensic techniques continue to improve with improving technology, forensic toxicology is must not be left behind.
Forensic toxicology is a field involving the analysis and interpretation of toxins and/or drugs found in specimens. This field has an enormous number of uses: it can determine how much alcohol a drunk driver has had, whether a rape victim was drugged, or whether a murder victim was poisoned. However, the sheer number of possible substances can make testing difficult and time consuming.
Applied Biosystems and Sciex’s recently introduced the Cliquid™ Drug Screen and Quant Software for Routine Forensic Toxicology application, a new method of toxicological analysis. It utilizes chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the components of a substance instead of older methods, like UV-based liquid chromatography or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The new process promises to reduce the time it takes to analyze a substance, improve accuracy, and introduce a higher library of substances to test for. The application contains 1,200 substances in its library and is claimed to be able to screen for hundreds of possible drugs in less than 20 minutes. As drugs and chemicals are constantly being created, improved, and derived from each other, a constantly improving library of what is tested must also constantly expand.
The testing itself also promises to be much more improved than previous methods. It requires less preparation, a smaller sample, and is much more sensitive than older methods. Consequently, it is much more cost effective and able to identify chemicals at lower concentrations in smaller samples than before. Using it, evidence can be found that would have gone unnoticed in earlier times. It is also automated, testing for substances automatically and identifying them using simple flow techniques.
What I find most interesting about the article is that it demonstrates the direction new technology is moving in. The process is primarily automated, automatically using chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the sample and automatically identifying the substances from a database of thousands of chemicals. This mirrors the increasing number of technologies that are becoming automated: automated DNA sequencing, drug dosing calculations, and even some online illness diagnostic tools. It also demonstrates the increasingly growing role of the computer in biotechnology. The power of the microprocessor gives scientists and forensic toxicologists capabilities and tools that would be unheard of in past times. Here’s hoping to the continued improvement of technology and thus crime investigation.
Petrucci, Anthony. "New Forensic Toxicology Application from Applied Biosystems/MDS SCIEX Improves Accuracy of Screening for Drugs of Abuse." Applied Biosystems Press Release 15 10 2007
As the number of drugs and pharmaceuticals continues to grow, the technology used to identify them must improve as well. The need for fast and accurate analysis of substances in the investigation of crimes fuels much of this need for constantly improving technology. As forensic techniques continue to improve with improving technology, forensic toxicology is must not be left behind.
Forensic toxicology is a field involving the analysis and interpretation of toxins and/or drugs found in specimens. This field has an enormous number of uses: it can determine how much alcohol a drunk driver has had, whether a rape victim was drugged, or whether a murder victim was poisoned. However, the sheer number of possible substances can make testing difficult and time consuming.
Applied Biosystems and Sciex’s recently introduced the Cliquid™ Drug Screen and Quant Software for Routine Forensic Toxicology application, a new method of toxicological analysis. It utilizes chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the components of a substance instead of older methods, like UV-based liquid chromatography or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The new process promises to reduce the time it takes to analyze a substance, improve accuracy, and introduce a higher library of substances to test for. The application contains 1,200 substances in its library and is claimed to be able to screen for hundreds of possible drugs in less than 20 minutes. As drugs and chemicals are constantly being created, improved, and derived from each other, a constantly improving library of what is tested must also constantly expand.
The testing itself also promises to be much more improved than previous methods. It requires less preparation, a smaller sample, and is much more sensitive than older methods. Consequently, it is much more cost effective and able to identify chemicals at lower concentrations in smaller samples than before. Using it, evidence can be found that would have gone unnoticed in earlier times. It is also automated, testing for substances automatically and identifying them using simple flow techniques.
What I find most interesting about the article is that it demonstrates the direction new technology is moving in. The process is primarily automated, automatically using chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the sample and automatically identifying the substances from a database of thousands of chemicals. This mirrors the increasing number of technologies that are becoming automated: automated DNA sequencing, drug dosing calculations, and even some online illness diagnostic tools. It also demonstrates the increasingly growing role of the computer in biotechnology. The power of the microprocessor gives scientists and forensic toxicologists capabilities and tools that would be unheard of in past times. Here’s hoping to the continued improvement of technology and thus crime investigation.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Fingerprint readers
"GUMMI BEARS TRICK A FINGERPRINT SCANNER"
By: Brandt, Andrew, PC World, 07378939, Aug2004, Vol. 22, Issue 8
(link not available)
In a revamped version of the age-old technology of fingerprinting, computer companies are using fingerprint scans as a form of security. No need to remember long complicated alpha-numeric passwords. Just press your finger against the little scanner which attaches to your laptop or PC. Personalized safety that is quick is a painless. Sound ideal?
In an article in PC world August 2004, Andrew Brandt (author) decides to put two of these “full-proof ” devices to the test. They are 1) DigitalPersona’s U.are.U 400, which uses optical technology to take a picture of a fingertip when you press down on its sensor pad. 2) Targus’s Defcon Autheticator which use capacitive sensors to read electrical currents across its surface. Brondt uses a number of different methods to try and trick the sensors. First he attempts to lift his own fingerprint from a CD, scanned the prints and then used a high-resolution photo printer. The U.are.U. 4000 was not fooled. Following that, Brandt created molds of six of his fingertips using ceramic clay; hardening them in a kiln. He goes on to use various soft household materials to create phony fingertips. Liquid latex fails, polymer casting material(too hard), Play-Doh(doesn't keep its shape), gelatin (melts when it touches the sensor). Finally rehardened gummi bears is discovered to have just the right consistency. Defcon Authenticator clearly recognizes the fraud but the gummi fingertip passes the U.are.U 4000 test.
Not every fingerprint worked but the thumbprint worked again and again. Not only that, that author was able to enroll one of the gummi print as a user and then used his own thumb to log on.
The procedure used here to make a replica fingerprint may not be realisitc but it shows that the optical scanner is definitely not perfect. Real tresspassers surely will have better counter technology. Maybe the best way to keep your precious data secure is to use multiple layers of security.
By: Brandt, Andrew, PC World, 07378939, Aug2004, Vol. 22, Issue 8
(link not available)
In a revamped version of the age-old technology of fingerprinting, computer companies are using fingerprint scans as a form of security. No need to remember long complicated alpha-numeric passwords. Just press your finger against the little scanner which attaches to your laptop or PC. Personalized safety that is quick is a painless. Sound ideal?
In an article in PC world August 2004, Andrew Brandt (author) decides to put two of these “full-proof ” devices to the test. They are 1) DigitalPersona’s U.are.U 400, which uses optical technology to take a picture of a fingertip when you press down on its sensor pad. 2) Targus’s Defcon Autheticator which use capacitive sensors to read electrical currents across its surface. Brondt uses a number of different methods to try and trick the sensors. First he attempts to lift his own fingerprint from a CD, scanned the prints and then used a high-resolution photo printer. The U.are.U. 4000 was not fooled. Following that, Brandt created molds of six of his fingertips using ceramic clay; hardening them in a kiln. He goes on to use various soft household materials to create phony fingertips. Liquid latex fails, polymer casting material(too hard), Play-Doh(doesn't keep its shape), gelatin (melts when it touches the sensor). Finally rehardened gummi bears is discovered to have just the right consistency. Defcon Authenticator clearly recognizes the fraud but the gummi fingertip passes the U.are.U 4000 test.
Not every fingerprint worked but the thumbprint worked again and again. Not only that, that author was able to enroll one of the gummi print as a user and then used his own thumb to log on.
The procedure used here to make a replica fingerprint may not be realisitc but it shows that the optical scanner is definitely not perfect. Real tresspassers surely will have better counter technology. Maybe the best way to keep your precious data secure is to use multiple layers of security.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Forensic Entomology
http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=112
Tonberlin, Jeffrey, John Wallace, and Jason Byrd. "Forensic Entomology: Myths Busted!." Forensic magazine October/November 2006:
With the advent of new forensics technology such as biometric detection and improved DNA testing, “classic” forensics such as ballistics, fingerprinting, and entomology have taken a backseat. While the accuracy and reliability of such methods have recently been called into question, I believe that they still have a role to play even in modern times.
Forensic entomology is aptly named. Basically, it is the use of entomology (the study of bugs) in forensics. Forensic entomologists use knowledge of the life cycles and behaviors of insects to aid in the investigation of a crime. For example, if an entomologist finds a larva on a deceased body that he or she knows takes two days to develop, that knowledge can be used to help pinpoint the time of death. If an insect that likes dry places is found on a body found in a swamp, it might indicate that the body had been moved some time after death.
While forensic entomology is often considered to be inaccurate and not a true forensic science, I feel that it definitely has uses. Entomologists have studied for decades the life cycles of insects, and as a result can relatively accurately place the time of death. The article specifically mentions that entomologists can give the shortest amount of time that a deceased has been dead, since they can compare the growth of insects to the growth of control insects under perfect conditions. While information like this isn’t going to solve a mystery by itself, it’s a piece of the greater puzzle that forensics tries to piece together.
One of the reasons I find forensic entomology fascinating is how different it is from other forms of forensics. Rather than computers, testing labs, and machinery that dominate other areas of forensics, we have an entirely different but still complex machine: a living organism. One that can tell us where a body has been, give clues about what happened, and sometimes even hint at poisons or drugs. All information important to forensics, but gained a different way. Entomology is the alternative medicine, if you will, of forensics. Even in an age of DNA identification, retinal scanning, and computer reconstruction, there is still always the use of older, simpler techniques.
The article is interesting since it is written in a “Mythbusters” format, debugging (if you will forgive the pun) some common misconceptions about forensic entomology. I find it interesting that even this old (there have been anecdotes of use of entomology dating back to the 1800s and probably prior), decidedly not flashy technology is not immune to the “CSI” effect.
With the development of new forensics technology and revelations about possible inaccuracies with old methodologies, I fear that old methods such as ballistics, entomology, polygraphs, and the like will go the way of the dinosaur. While older methods may be less accurate than today’s modern techniques, they still play a key role in the investigation of crimes.
Forensic facial reconstruction
"Identity crisis"
Drewer, Brant, New Scientist, 27 February 1999
http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16121754.500&print=true
Before investigators can even begin looking for suspects for a crime such as murder, it’s often important to be able to identify the victim. Sometimes all that is found are the skull and bones of the deceased. DNA analysis reveals nothing, dental analysis also fails to yield a missing person. In these circumstances, police resort to a technique known as forensics facial reconstruction to yield and photograph of what the deceased might have looked like.
Facial reconstruction as a technique to create 3-D facial approximations was first used by Welcker (1883). His (1895) was credited with advancing the technique as well as collecting data for the first table on average facial tissue thickness. This technique finds its origin in Biological anthropology and archaeology where it is still in use. Not till the mid 1960’s Wilton Krogman popularize the facial reconstruction in the field of forensics.
Two types of facial reconstuction exist today: two-dimensional and three-dimensional. 2D facial reconstructions are hand-drawn created from ante-mortem photographs and the skull. Tissue depth markers are place along the skull and photgraphs are taken. Drawing are done on a material known as Vellum. Computer programs F.A.C.E and C.A.R.E.S are now capable of creating 2D facial constructions much quicker .
3D facial reconstructions can be done in clay or under the computer. Construction with clay is a very slow and meticulous process, that begins with the creation of a plaster cast of the skull. Landmarks which correspond to particular spots on the unidentified skull are marked off on the cast. These sites represent the average facial tissue thickness for people of the same sex, race, and age as that of the remains. Next facial muscles are layered on the cast, followed by soft tissue of the neck, nose and then the lips. Muscles of facial expression and the soft tissue around the eyes, the ears are added next. Much fine tuning is done afterwards and finally a layer of flesh is added to mimic the skin. (To see a more complete and detailed procedure, search Taylor and Angel: Craniofacial Identification in Forensic Medicine, pgs 177-185)
Newer technology, described in the above article, “replaces knives with computers… and clay with a facial template.” This method is significantly faster than using clay and is more flexible(easier to modify.) First off, the skull is placed on a rotating table. A laser is projected on to the skull while it rotates. Ttwo cameras record the changing contours as the laser passes over the subject. Computers then triangulate the data collected by the cameras and creates a 3D image. Virtual pegs are place around the 3D image of the skull to delineate tissue depth. A facial template is then applied to the skull. At the Human Identification Centre of the University of Glasgow, the team of forensic pathologist choose from 200 templates: digitised faces of men and women, of different ages, build and race.
Finding the a suitable template is important because if the skull does not match the template. The template will become overstretched and this will cause distortions. To combat this problem, the team above aims to collect 3D Images of live people’s faces and their skulls from CT, MRI and ultrasound. With these images, researchers will try to calculate the distance between landmarks on the face and the skull. With this data technicians will be able to find a facial template for an unidentified skull based on calculated values rather than mere visual comparison. Through this same project they hope also to create a larger databases of facial templates.
Following matching a template, finer musculature is added and finally, the nose, the lips and the ears are added. These last three facial features are very difficult to recreate. Soft tissue degrades first thus no remants of these parts are usually found with the bones. Questions such as how long a person nose is? Did he/she smile much or were they generally angry of depressed are difficult and important questions to be tackled. Further study must be done. Creating a larger database of facial templates will hopefully reveal relationships between bone alignment/arrangement and the shape and size of the facial features that are more difficult to place.
Facial reconstruction continues to improve as technique that estimates what individuals may look like. More sophisticated computer algorithms will create more accurate reconstructions of individuals that otherwise have no other identification. Expert in the field generally agree that facial reconstruction will remain a tool for recognition and not identification. It will continue to provide a spark by creating a possible link between victim and family and friends but ulitmately other forensic techniques such as DNA analysis are needed to confirm identity.
For more information on:
3D -graphs see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6W-3YGDCHC-1-N&_cdi=5041&_user=489286&_orig=search&_coverDate=02%2F14%2F2000&_sk=998919997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzk&md5=92f014e15ea6b5e1b8a7d7c951149129&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Advance statistical modeling:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6W-4JGJJ88-5-R&_cdi=5041&_user=489286&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2006&_sk=998409999.8998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkWz&md5=707a502a4c1f4d9efc8ece8952a58174&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Drewer, Brant, New Scientist, 27 February 1999
http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16121754.500&print=true
Before investigators can even begin looking for suspects for a crime such as murder, it’s often important to be able to identify the victim. Sometimes all that is found are the skull and bones of the deceased. DNA analysis reveals nothing, dental analysis also fails to yield a missing person. In these circumstances, police resort to a technique known as forensics facial reconstruction to yield and photograph of what the deceased might have looked like.
Facial reconstruction as a technique to create 3-D facial approximations was first used by Welcker (1883). His (1895) was credited with advancing the technique as well as collecting data for the first table on average facial tissue thickness. This technique finds its origin in Biological anthropology and archaeology where it is still in use. Not till the mid 1960’s Wilton Krogman popularize the facial reconstruction in the field of forensics.
Two types of facial reconstuction exist today: two-dimensional and three-dimensional. 2D facial reconstructions are hand-drawn created from ante-mortem photographs and the skull. Tissue depth markers are place along the skull and photgraphs are taken. Drawing are done on a material known as Vellum. Computer programs F.A.C.E and C.A.R.E.S are now capable of creating 2D facial constructions much quicker .
3D facial reconstructions can be done in clay or under the computer. Construction with clay is a very slow and meticulous process, that begins with the creation of a plaster cast of the skull. Landmarks which correspond to particular spots on the unidentified skull are marked off on the cast. These sites represent the average facial tissue thickness for people of the same sex, race, and age as that of the remains. Next facial muscles are layered on the cast, followed by soft tissue of the neck, nose and then the lips. Muscles of facial expression and the soft tissue around the eyes, the ears are added next. Much fine tuning is done afterwards and finally a layer of flesh is added to mimic the skin. (To see a more complete and detailed procedure, search Taylor and Angel: Craniofacial Identification in Forensic Medicine, pgs 177-185)
Newer technology, described in the above article, “replaces knives with computers… and clay with a facial template.” This method is significantly faster than using clay and is more flexible(easier to modify.) First off, the skull is placed on a rotating table. A laser is projected on to the skull while it rotates. Ttwo cameras record the changing contours as the laser passes over the subject. Computers then triangulate the data collected by the cameras and creates a 3D image. Virtual pegs are place around the 3D image of the skull to delineate tissue depth. A facial template is then applied to the skull. At the Human Identification Centre of the University of Glasgow, the team of forensic pathologist choose from 200 templates: digitised faces of men and women, of different ages, build and race.
Finding the a suitable template is important because if the skull does not match the template. The template will become overstretched and this will cause distortions. To combat this problem, the team above aims to collect 3D Images of live people’s faces and their skulls from CT, MRI and ultrasound. With these images, researchers will try to calculate the distance between landmarks on the face and the skull. With this data technicians will be able to find a facial template for an unidentified skull based on calculated values rather than mere visual comparison. Through this same project they hope also to create a larger databases of facial templates.
Following matching a template, finer musculature is added and finally, the nose, the lips and the ears are added. These last three facial features are very difficult to recreate. Soft tissue degrades first thus no remants of these parts are usually found with the bones. Questions such as how long a person nose is? Did he/she smile much or were they generally angry of depressed are difficult and important questions to be tackled. Further study must be done. Creating a larger database of facial templates will hopefully reveal relationships between bone alignment/arrangement and the shape and size of the facial features that are more difficult to place.
Facial reconstruction continues to improve as technique that estimates what individuals may look like. More sophisticated computer algorithms will create more accurate reconstructions of individuals that otherwise have no other identification. Expert in the field generally agree that facial reconstruction will remain a tool for recognition and not identification. It will continue to provide a spark by creating a possible link between victim and family and friends but ulitmately other forensic techniques such as DNA analysis are needed to confirm identity.
For more information on:
3D -graphs see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6W-3YGDCHC-1-N&_cdi=5041&_user=489286&_orig=search&_coverDate=02%2F14%2F2000&_sk=998919997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzk&md5=92f014e15ea6b5e1b8a7d7c951149129&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Advance statistical modeling:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T6W-4JGJJ88-5-R&_cdi=5041&_user=489286&_orig=search&_coverDate=05%2F15%2F2006&_sk=998409999.8998&view=c&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkWz&md5=707a502a4c1f4d9efc8ece8952a58174&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
Polygraphs and lie detectors
"The limits of the polygraph"
Faigman, David L, Issues in Science in Technology, Fall 2003;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200310/ai_n9343906/print
Polygraph test, lie detectors are given more credit than they deserve in television and even by technicians, and politicians. CSI and similar shows lead us, the public, to believe in the validity and accuracy of many forensics tools. The truth is that these highly toted tools are actually a lot less reliable than purported. A review article in the Fall 2003 issue of Issues in Science and Technology states that many courts at all levels are precluding many identification techniques on the bases that they are not found rigorous scientific evidence. With exception to the scientifically seasoned DNA analysis, “Fingerprinting, fiber analysis, hair analysis, ballistics, bite marks, etc…” have all come under questions for lack of scientific foundation.
In the same issue of Issues in Science and Technology, author David Faigman, looks at the use of polygraphs in law enforcement and national security. As a decisive tool, the polygraph is limited to questions that demand a straightforward answer. For example, “Did you see the victim on Sunday?” This questions is black and white and thus there is no confusion, the polygraph is very accurate in these situations However for screening, such as detecting a spy or a member of a terrorist organization, questions may no revolve around a specific event. And so the questions are generic. “Did you ever reveal classified information to and unauthorized personnel?” It may be unclear to an examinee whether a particular activities “justifies” a yes answer, so he may feel like he’s lying even though he’s providing a truthful response.
Allegations of espionage by Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist at Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National laboratory, cause many of his colleagues to be subsequently subjected to polygraph test. This sparked Congress to ask the National Research Council to study the polygraph testing’s ability. To distinguish accurately between lying and truth-telling across variety of setting and examinee, even in the face of countermeasures.
1st they examined the scientific bases of underlying the physiological measures of the polygraph. Despite its ability to detect psychological states associated with deception, similar results were obtained for people merely anxious about being tested.
The committee collected all available published and unpublished data on the accuracy of polygraph tests. They found the quality of studies to be low in general. Furthermore they found testing methods to be inherently flawed. Laboratory studies suffered from lack of realism: less variation in test implementation, in characteristics of examinees and in the nature and context. Generally, the limited scopes of these experiments lead to overestimates in the accuracy of polygraph tests. Field studies are limited by the difficulty in determining the truth against which test results could be compared. Moreover, they were not conducted in a double-blind control study. Examiners had prior knowledge of the case and often the cases outcome would be affected by the examination. Biases inherent to these studies made it difficult to obtain the objective truth.
Hypothetical studies were conducted using computer for security screening applications and crimination investigation. Polygraph tests were conducted in two different modes: Suspicious (more sensitive) and friendly(less sensitive). In both security screening and criminal investigation, suspicious mode yields more positive results, more guilty/spies but it also created more false positives (innocent who failed the test). In friendly, few innocent people were wrongfully accused but the large majority of guilty/spies would pass the test.
Despite the inaccuracy of polygraph tests and high chance of errors, it is still used as a investigative tool on grounds that it produces accurate results, and the it deters people on the premise that they believe that deception may be revealed by the test.
Faigman also discusses the potential issue of polygraph tests use in post-conviction sex-offender maintenance. In 30 states, as part of their probation program sex offenders must submit them to periodic polygraph tests. Examinees are often asked questions surrounding “sexually deviant” or “high risk” behavior, such as the use of alcohol or drugs, sexually activity with a consenting adult, or “masturbation to deviant fantasy,” rather than on the detection of actual sex crimes or other violations of the terms of parole. This testing is based on presumption that legal but “undesirable behaviors are indicators of illegal activity. Faigman says that there is no evidence that a “failed” polygraph test is an actual indicator of concealed sex crimes and that there is no scientific bases for using the polygraph as a management of treatment tool for sexual offenders.
The polygraph test is not very accurate that much is clear. It often works on the threat that it will reveal the truth. False positives and false negative are serious risks which make polygraphs unreliable. From a scientific standpoint polygraph holds little ground. They should as Faigman says be used with great caution, if at all in courts.
However, the current stance of the government is can we afford not to be cautious or not use the polygraphs. Even if a number of innocent are found guilty is not worth it to find that 1 person who might cause massive destruction or is not worth it to be more cautious to a former sex offender. In such cases, most people I feel would rather on the side of caution. While the prosecution, courts, and the government continue to use the polygraph test, new more accurate technology which is base on rigorous scientific testing must be developed.
Faigman, David L, Issues in Science in Technology, Fall 2003;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200310/ai_n9343906/print
Polygraph test, lie detectors are given more credit than they deserve in television and even by technicians, and politicians. CSI and similar shows lead us, the public, to believe in the validity and accuracy of many forensics tools. The truth is that these highly toted tools are actually a lot less reliable than purported. A review article in the Fall 2003 issue of Issues in Science and Technology states that many courts at all levels are precluding many identification techniques on the bases that they are not found rigorous scientific evidence. With exception to the scientifically seasoned DNA analysis, “Fingerprinting, fiber analysis, hair analysis, ballistics, bite marks, etc…” have all come under questions for lack of scientific foundation.
In the same issue of Issues in Science and Technology, author David Faigman, looks at the use of polygraphs in law enforcement and national security. As a decisive tool, the polygraph is limited to questions that demand a straightforward answer. For example, “Did you see the victim on Sunday?” This questions is black and white and thus there is no confusion, the polygraph is very accurate in these situations However for screening, such as detecting a spy or a member of a terrorist organization, questions may no revolve around a specific event. And so the questions are generic. “Did you ever reveal classified information to and unauthorized personnel?” It may be unclear to an examinee whether a particular activities “justifies” a yes answer, so he may feel like he’s lying even though he’s providing a truthful response.
Allegations of espionage by Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist at Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National laboratory, cause many of his colleagues to be subsequently subjected to polygraph test. This sparked Congress to ask the National Research Council to study the polygraph testing’s ability. To distinguish accurately between lying and truth-telling across variety of setting and examinee, even in the face of countermeasures.
1st they examined the scientific bases of underlying the physiological measures of the polygraph. Despite its ability to detect psychological states associated with deception, similar results were obtained for people merely anxious about being tested.
The committee collected all available published and unpublished data on the accuracy of polygraph tests. They found the quality of studies to be low in general. Furthermore they found testing methods to be inherently flawed. Laboratory studies suffered from lack of realism: less variation in test implementation, in characteristics of examinees and in the nature and context. Generally, the limited scopes of these experiments lead to overestimates in the accuracy of polygraph tests. Field studies are limited by the difficulty in determining the truth against which test results could be compared. Moreover, they were not conducted in a double-blind control study. Examiners had prior knowledge of the case and often the cases outcome would be affected by the examination. Biases inherent to these studies made it difficult to obtain the objective truth.
Hypothetical studies were conducted using computer for security screening applications and crimination investigation. Polygraph tests were conducted in two different modes: Suspicious (more sensitive) and friendly(less sensitive). In both security screening and criminal investigation, suspicious mode yields more positive results, more guilty/spies but it also created more false positives (innocent who failed the test). In friendly, few innocent people were wrongfully accused but the large majority of guilty/spies would pass the test.
Despite the inaccuracy of polygraph tests and high chance of errors, it is still used as a investigative tool on grounds that it produces accurate results, and the it deters people on the premise that they believe that deception may be revealed by the test.
Faigman also discusses the potential issue of polygraph tests use in post-conviction sex-offender maintenance. In 30 states, as part of their probation program sex offenders must submit them to periodic polygraph tests. Examinees are often asked questions surrounding “sexually deviant” or “high risk” behavior, such as the use of alcohol or drugs, sexually activity with a consenting adult, or “masturbation to deviant fantasy,” rather than on the detection of actual sex crimes or other violations of the terms of parole. This testing is based on presumption that legal but “undesirable behaviors are indicators of illegal activity. Faigman says that there is no evidence that a “failed” polygraph test is an actual indicator of concealed sex crimes and that there is no scientific bases for using the polygraph as a management of treatment tool for sexual offenders.
The polygraph test is not very accurate that much is clear. It often works on the threat that it will reveal the truth. False positives and false negative are serious risks which make polygraphs unreliable. From a scientific standpoint polygraph holds little ground. They should as Faigman says be used with great caution, if at all in courts.
However, the current stance of the government is can we afford not to be cautious or not use the polygraphs. Even if a number of innocent are found guilty is not worth it to find that 1 person who might cause massive destruction or is not worth it to be more cautious to a former sex offender. In such cases, most people I feel would rather on the side of caution. While the prosecution, courts, and the government continue to use the polygraph test, new more accurate technology which is base on rigorous scientific testing must be developed.
I sure hope terrorists don't like sunglasses
I think the subject of face-recognition technology, which Chris called attention to in his post about biometrics, deserves consideration of the viewpoint of the independent press, and not just the military, though I am grateful to Chris for calling attention to this subject with that post. This 2002 Wired Magazine article chronicles some of the (extremely problematic) flaws of such a technology.
Airports have been calling for face-recognition technology to scan for terrorists and other suspected bad guys in security lines since September 11 and even before. But what seems like the golden bullet for aviation security is not yet anything to get excited about, because it doesn't work.
You'll notice that while the Department of Homeland Security has a budget of $46 billion for FY 2008 (see the official DHS budget) and spends a great chunk of that on airport security, you haven't seen facial-recognition technology adopted. It's been tested many times, but it has failed.
At Palm Beach International Airport, where the technology was being tested, the computer failed to recognize airport employees 53 percent of the time. How could the computer possibly pick out a terrorist, even one whose face was known to the NSA (a hopeful assumption), at a checkpoint that millions of non-terrorists pass through every year? Right now, it's conceivable that the technology would sound the alarm dozens of times daily because grandpa has similar eyebrows to Osama bin Laden while almost certainly missing an actual terrorist.
(Nevermind the very non-trivial concerns of the American Civil Liberties Union that we ought to think twice about whether we want the government to do something like this.)
Internet privacy and security consultant Richard Smith, based in Brookline, Mass., analyzed whether this technology was "ready for prime time." His findings (In short, "no.") should be sobering to anyone who thinks this technology is anywhere close to being so.
The technology works by converting a continuous video stream of faces and converting it to digital stills. The computer then compares the faces with a database, sounding the alarm if a close match is made. The problem? The system is incredibly fussy. Sunglasses--even regular glasses--can completely throw the system, which uses eyes as anchor points.
The setup that would need to be implemented at an airport security checkpoint for the system to have any chance at working, according to Smith, would be a special walkway where lighting is "strictly controlled," with cameras at head height and passengers looking straight ahead, having removed their sunglasses and hats. That's not so hard to imagine (it hardly sounds that much more inconvenient than removing one's shoes), and DHS would certainly pay for the upgrade, which would require all new security cameras, among other things. But even if this technology were perfected a few years down the road and such a "walkway" system were implemented nationwide, there remains the problem of matching these faces to terrorists.
The real NSA is not like the Counter-Terrorist Unit of Fox's extremely right-wing (though very cool) television show "24," which seems to have every imaginable technological absurdity at its disposal. As Smith points out, it's not easy to put together a "terrorist database." Some reasons why:
1. We don't usually know who the terrorists are (Only 2 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, were known to the CIA and FBI, and the agencies only had a photo of the latter.)
2. Terrorists don't participate in photo line-ups.
3. Both Alhazmi and Almihdhar has US Visas and had entered the US legally twice before September 11th.
But Smith's best reason why a technology like this is a waste of time and money in trying to find even the limited number of known terrorists like Alhazmi, those who have portrait-quality photos available on MySpace and are courteous enough not to wear a hat indoors, is this: you can find Nasaf Alhazmi in the White Pages.
Airports have been calling for face-recognition technology to scan for terrorists and other suspected bad guys in security lines since September 11 and even before. But what seems like the golden bullet for aviation security is not yet anything to get excited about, because it doesn't work.
You'll notice that while the Department of Homeland Security has a budget of $46 billion for FY 2008 (see the official DHS budget) and spends a great chunk of that on airport security, you haven't seen facial-recognition technology adopted. It's been tested many times, but it has failed.
At Palm Beach International Airport, where the technology was being tested, the computer failed to recognize airport employees 53 percent of the time. How could the computer possibly pick out a terrorist, even one whose face was known to the NSA (a hopeful assumption), at a checkpoint that millions of non-terrorists pass through every year? Right now, it's conceivable that the technology would sound the alarm dozens of times daily because grandpa has similar eyebrows to Osama bin Laden while almost certainly missing an actual terrorist.
(Nevermind the very non-trivial concerns of the American Civil Liberties Union that we ought to think twice about whether we want the government to do something like this.)
Internet privacy and security consultant Richard Smith, based in Brookline, Mass., analyzed whether this technology was "ready for prime time." His findings (In short, "no.") should be sobering to anyone who thinks this technology is anywhere close to being so.
The technology works by converting a continuous video stream of faces and converting it to digital stills. The computer then compares the faces with a database, sounding the alarm if a close match is made. The problem? The system is incredibly fussy. Sunglasses--even regular glasses--can completely throw the system, which uses eyes as anchor points.
The setup that would need to be implemented at an airport security checkpoint for the system to have any chance at working, according to Smith, would be a special walkway where lighting is "strictly controlled," with cameras at head height and passengers looking straight ahead, having removed their sunglasses and hats. That's not so hard to imagine (it hardly sounds that much more inconvenient than removing one's shoes), and DHS would certainly pay for the upgrade, which would require all new security cameras, among other things. But even if this technology were perfected a few years down the road and such a "walkway" system were implemented nationwide, there remains the problem of matching these faces to terrorists.
The real NSA is not like the Counter-Terrorist Unit of Fox's extremely right-wing (though very cool) television show "24," which seems to have every imaginable technological absurdity at its disposal. As Smith points out, it's not easy to put together a "terrorist database." Some reasons why:
1. We don't usually know who the terrorists are (Only 2 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, were known to the CIA and FBI, and the agencies only had a photo of the latter.)
2. Terrorists don't participate in photo line-ups.
3. Both Alhazmi and Almihdhar has US Visas and had entered the US legally twice before September 11th.
But Smith's best reason why a technology like this is a waste of time and money in trying to find even the limited number of known terrorists like Alhazmi, those who have portrait-quality photos available on MySpace and are courteous enough not to wear a hat indoors, is this: you can find Nasaf Alhazmi in the White Pages.
The use of PCR in Forensic DNA Analysis
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/forensics.shtml
I have been researching the uses of biotechnology in Forensics and have come upon some very useful information in regards to how decades old DNA can be restored. In the past, DNA that had been improperly stored or stored for too long had a good chance of degrading and becoming useless to the law enforcement community. This however, due to some recent innovation in the last few years is almost a thing of the past.
Years ago a sample of DNA the size of a quarter was required to get accurate incriminating information. Now with PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis we can take very minute amounts (a matter of a few skin cells) and even degraded samples of DNA and amplify them. This process works by heating the DNA, denaturing its proteins and then allowing it to cool in the presence of a polymerase, which replicates the DNA. This process is done repeatedly until sufficient genetic material has been produced. Since DNA is produced by a system of exact copies the new material is just like the old in every way.
This innovation has allowed the re-opening of many cold cases in which the evidence had been unable to be analysed in the past. I believe this to be a great benefit to the justice system in that previous evidence that was once considered unusable but would have saved someone jail time or put a criminal behind bars can now be recovered and properly analysed.
I do not know of any controversy as of yet with this process other than the statute of limitations laws are currently under scrutiny because of the new ability to recover once lost evidence. There are now states who are changing the statute of limitations to start upon the discovery of new DNA evidence. I think overall that this technology is more of a boon than a bane. I hope that someday, evidence once stored on a shelf thought to be too degraded for use in court may be of use due to this technology and that justice will be served.
I have been researching the uses of biotechnology in Forensics and have come upon some very useful information in regards to how decades old DNA can be restored. In the past, DNA that had been improperly stored or stored for too long had a good chance of degrading and becoming useless to the law enforcement community. This however, due to some recent innovation in the last few years is almost a thing of the past.
Years ago a sample of DNA the size of a quarter was required to get accurate incriminating information. Now with PCR or Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis we can take very minute amounts (a matter of a few skin cells) and even degraded samples of DNA and amplify them. This process works by heating the DNA, denaturing its proteins and then allowing it to cool in the presence of a polymerase, which replicates the DNA. This process is done repeatedly until sufficient genetic material has been produced. Since DNA is produced by a system of exact copies the new material is just like the old in every way.
This innovation has allowed the re-opening of many cold cases in which the evidence had been unable to be analysed in the past. I believe this to be a great benefit to the justice system in that previous evidence that was once considered unusable but would have saved someone jail time or put a criminal behind bars can now be recovered and properly analysed.
I do not know of any controversy as of yet with this process other than the statute of limitations laws are currently under scrutiny because of the new ability to recover once lost evidence. There are now states who are changing the statute of limitations to start upon the discovery of new DNA evidence. I think overall that this technology is more of a boon than a bane. I hope that someday, evidence once stored on a shelf thought to be too degraded for use in court may be of use due to this technology and that justice will be served.
Biometrics and the War on Crime
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=24912
I was researching future uses of biotechnology in the war on crime and I came across this article on the use of biometrics in fighting crime. Until now, I thought we were limited by the use of DNA or fingerprints but that is soon going to change. Today with the aid of computers we can now use more than just DNA and fingerprints but we can use your face, retina image, voice and gait while walking to identify a person.
This technology has already proven itself in detaining terrorists that try to constantly change their appearance to get by security. One example which occurred in Iraq, was a man that had been detained for questionable activity but was later let go. Before his release his biometrics were recorded. 10 months later the same man tried to pass by security forces with an altered appearance and ID and was caught do to his inability to fool this technology.
I believe this technology may help the public rest a bit easier knowing that a terrorist will be unable to use just a fake ID to get on a plane or enter a secured building. The government is pushing that in 2008 we all have an ID or drivers license that meets minimum federal guidelines on security issues. One of these options may be a license that has encoded information on it that says this ID belongs to you and only you by reference to a mix of biometric data such as DNA, Fingerprints and retina scan. The typical airport check-in may go something like this. You show up to get your tickets and you have to scan your license and then have a machine do a quick fingerprint and retina check. Once verified to be you the tickets are then tagged with your biometrics to prevent someone else from using them and to allow the boarding pass collector to scan you again on boarding. Since the ID will not be transferable and it must be encoded by the local government it will be much more unlikely to have a fake ID that will give you access to a plane.
With this technology we will be able to identify and prevent people from entering and exiting the country, who would otherwise cause harm. The current proposals may dictate that all foreign nationals entering the country have their biometrics taken and kept on file. They must enter and exit the country through these checkpoints to give our government and security forces a better idea of who is travelling in and out of the country.
This new technology does however bring about the question of privacy. Many everyday people will not want to be profiled and consider this technology as another way for big brother to watch them. I can sympathize with them but I can personally attest to the fact that seeing a strange person taking pictures of my ship while I was in the Navy and asking if it was leaving anytime soon was quite nerve racking. I think this technology would help us identify possible threats before they have time to commit to them. Just imagine another use would be to reunite kidnapped or missing children with their families before large amounts of time have gone by. Technology is a wonderful thing if used for good. Lets hope that this technology will help save lives and our freedoms.
I was researching future uses of biotechnology in the war on crime and I came across this article on the use of biometrics in fighting crime. Until now, I thought we were limited by the use of DNA or fingerprints but that is soon going to change. Today with the aid of computers we can now use more than just DNA and fingerprints but we can use your face, retina image, voice and gait while walking to identify a person.
This technology has already proven itself in detaining terrorists that try to constantly change their appearance to get by security. One example which occurred in Iraq, was a man that had been detained for questionable activity but was later let go. Before his release his biometrics were recorded. 10 months later the same man tried to pass by security forces with an altered appearance and ID and was caught do to his inability to fool this technology.
I believe this technology may help the public rest a bit easier knowing that a terrorist will be unable to use just a fake ID to get on a plane or enter a secured building. The government is pushing that in 2008 we all have an ID or drivers license that meets minimum federal guidelines on security issues. One of these options may be a license that has encoded information on it that says this ID belongs to you and only you by reference to a mix of biometric data such as DNA, Fingerprints and retina scan. The typical airport check-in may go something like this. You show up to get your tickets and you have to scan your license and then have a machine do a quick fingerprint and retina check. Once verified to be you the tickets are then tagged with your biometrics to prevent someone else from using them and to allow the boarding pass collector to scan you again on boarding. Since the ID will not be transferable and it must be encoded by the local government it will be much more unlikely to have a fake ID that will give you access to a plane.
With this technology we will be able to identify and prevent people from entering and exiting the country, who would otherwise cause harm. The current proposals may dictate that all foreign nationals entering the country have their biometrics taken and kept on file. They must enter and exit the country through these checkpoints to give our government and security forces a better idea of who is travelling in and out of the country.
This new technology does however bring about the question of privacy. Many everyday people will not want to be profiled and consider this technology as another way for big brother to watch them. I can sympathize with them but I can personally attest to the fact that seeing a strange person taking pictures of my ship while I was in the Navy and asking if it was leaving anytime soon was quite nerve racking. I think this technology would help us identify possible threats before they have time to commit to them. Just imagine another use would be to reunite kidnapped or missing children with their families before large amounts of time have gone by. Technology is a wonderful thing if used for good. Lets hope that this technology will help save lives and our freedoms.
The use of DNA to solve criminal cases.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/194197.pdf
I was researching the topic of forensics in biotechnology and the uses of DNA in criminal investigations and I came across this report from the attorney generals office on using DNA to solve cold cases. I must admit that all I knew before this, of how DNA is used in investigations came from TV sitcoms like CSI.
I spent some time going over the article and found it to be most informative. Today DNA is almost a common household acronym but only about 20 years ago was it just starting to get serious attention from the law enforcement community. Today thanks to PCR, we can use DNA that is decades old much like finger prints to track down criminals with the aid of information technology systems such as CODIS.
CODIS or the Combined DNA Index System which is operated by the FBI acts like a library for DNA evidence collected at crime scenes. The great thing about this is that once information is entered, participating states and local authorities can compare their DNA samples to the database and look for matches. This allowed one case in which a man was raping women and burning their houses down to be caught and brought to justice. The man was arrested in another city for firing a gun in public which then required that his DNA be entered into CODIS. This entry set off the alarm that he was involved in more than just a public disturbance.
I believe that this technology will help bring justice to many and that the public will greatly appreciate the ability to remove the doubt of conviction. This system not only has put people behind bars but has freed people from prison as well. There has been some debate though, as with any technology, its only as good as the people who are trained to use it. Contamination of evidence and older samples are often too degraded to use. These problems however are becoming less persistent as the technology gets better.
I think this is a great advance and that it will only get better. I do however hope that this technology wont be used to watch the general populace. I believe that the more technological the justice system becomes that the better off we will be. No more will a confused and scared "eye witness" be able to convince a jury of convicting when good DNA evidence says other words. Technology may be cold but it doesn't make mistakes like people. Lets make this technology more available to law enforcement across the country. Lets integrate biotechnology with the law.
I was researching the topic of forensics in biotechnology and the uses of DNA in criminal investigations and I came across this report from the attorney generals office on using DNA to solve cold cases. I must admit that all I knew before this, of how DNA is used in investigations came from TV sitcoms like CSI.
I spent some time going over the article and found it to be most informative. Today DNA is almost a common household acronym but only about 20 years ago was it just starting to get serious attention from the law enforcement community. Today thanks to PCR, we can use DNA that is decades old much like finger prints to track down criminals with the aid of information technology systems such as CODIS.
CODIS or the Combined DNA Index System which is operated by the FBI acts like a library for DNA evidence collected at crime scenes. The great thing about this is that once information is entered, participating states and local authorities can compare their DNA samples to the database and look for matches. This allowed one case in which a man was raping women and burning their houses down to be caught and brought to justice. The man was arrested in another city for firing a gun in public which then required that his DNA be entered into CODIS. This entry set off the alarm that he was involved in more than just a public disturbance.
I believe that this technology will help bring justice to many and that the public will greatly appreciate the ability to remove the doubt of conviction. This system not only has put people behind bars but has freed people from prison as well. There has been some debate though, as with any technology, its only as good as the people who are trained to use it. Contamination of evidence and older samples are often too degraded to use. These problems however are becoming less persistent as the technology gets better.
I think this is a great advance and that it will only get better. I do however hope that this technology wont be used to watch the general populace. I believe that the more technological the justice system becomes that the better off we will be. No more will a confused and scared "eye witness" be able to convince a jury of convicting when good DNA evidence says other words. Technology may be cold but it doesn't make mistakes like people. Lets make this technology more available to law enforcement across the country. Lets integrate biotechnology with the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)