Dear Editor,
Like most Jamaicans, I am distracted by a number of issues, crime, the International Monetary Fund's Extended Fund Facility, public sector workers losing their jobs, and survival in a shrinking economy. While these issues confront us we mustn't neglect following punitive legislation our government is enacting.
In the 1970s, after a series of high-profile murders, the Michael Manley Government rushed through legislation and a Gun Court that breached people's right. We must not allow history to repeat itself with this Portia Simpson Miller Government and the DNA law.
In 1984, Professor Jeffreys, a British scientist, discovered DNA, surprisingly the first case of using DNA involved an African woman proving a child was hers and this prevented an immigration team from deporting him. Today, the science is mainly used in criminal cases. The science itself is almost fool-proof, the problems associated with it are mainly confined to human error and procedural mistakes. In other words, the integrity of using DNA will depend on the human factor, and since human beings can be corrupted, there are serious dangers in adopting the science. Documentaries like Forensic Science show us how hairs, fingerprints, saliva, sperm left at rape scenes, even a drop of blood can be used to convict the guilty and free the innocent.
Despite this surety, perception has to be battled in the legal systems, as in the most famous "If the gloves doesn't fit you will have to acquit" O J Simpson trial, it is believed that a rich man could unearth startling deficiencies in using DNA. In the O J Simpson case a policeman, Mark Fuhrman, along with police incompetence, decided Simpson's fate. Criminologist Colin Yamaguchi gave evidence that he had spilled some of Simpson's blood and then handled his Rockingham gloves. Simpson's blood samples were left in a hot vehicle for hours and the DNA degraded. Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman's blood samples were contaminated. Pictures taken by police at Simpson's home showed no blood, but later blood was found, which led to the belief that blood was planted.
DNA doesn't lie, people do. And if the police collecting evidence are corrupt, so will be the DNA samples collected. Remember former Prime Minister P J Patterson's remarks: "A corrupt police force cannot investigate corruption." If someone is found innocent, why should the police retain their DNA sample? DNA evidence can be planted at a crime scene, the alleged perpetrator doesn't necessarily have to be present. The integrity of the laboratory, policemen collecting samples, and how samples are treated must be ensured if we are going to use the science to convict or set innocent people free.
Are you convinced that the Jamaican police can be trusted to collect your DNA sample?
Mark Clarke
mark_clarke9@yahoo.com
Before we rush the DNA law...
-->
Like most Jamaicans, I am distracted by a number of issues, crime, the International Monetary Fund's Extended Fund Facility, public sector workers losing their jobs, and survival in a shrinking economy. While these issues confront us we mustn't neglect following punitive legislation our government is enacting.
In the 1970s, after a series of high-profile murders, the Michael Manley Government rushed through legislation and a Gun Court that breached people's right. We must not allow history to repeat itself with this Portia Simpson Miller Government and the DNA law.
In 1984, Professor Jeffreys, a British scientist, discovered DNA, surprisingly the first case of using DNA involved an African woman proving a child was hers and this prevented an immigration team from deporting him. Today, the science is mainly used in criminal cases. The science itself is almost fool-proof, the problems associated with it are mainly confined to human error and procedural mistakes. In other words, the integrity of using DNA will depend on the human factor, and since human beings can be corrupted, there are serious dangers in adopting the science. Documentaries like Forensic Science show us how hairs, fingerprints, saliva, sperm left at rape scenes, even a drop of blood can be used to convict the guilty and free the innocent.
Despite this surety, perception has to be battled in the legal systems, as in the most famous "If the gloves doesn't fit you will have to acquit" O J Simpson trial, it is believed that a rich man could unearth startling deficiencies in using DNA. In the O J Simpson case a policeman, Mark Fuhrman, along with police incompetence, decided Simpson's fate. Criminologist Colin Yamaguchi gave evidence that he had spilled some of Simpson's blood and then handled his Rockingham gloves. Simpson's blood samples were left in a hot vehicle for hours and the DNA degraded. Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman's blood samples were contaminated. Pictures taken by police at Simpson's home showed no blood, but later blood was found, which led to the belief that blood was planted.
DNA doesn't lie, people do. And if the police collecting evidence are corrupt, so will be the DNA samples collected. Remember former Prime Minister P J Patterson's remarks: "A corrupt police force cannot investigate corruption." If someone is found innocent, why should the police retain their DNA sample? DNA evidence can be planted at a crime scene, the alleged perpetrator doesn't necessarily have to be present. The integrity of the laboratory, policemen collecting samples, and how samples are treated must be ensured if we are going to use the science to convict or set innocent people free.
Are you convinced that the Jamaican police can be trusted to collect your DNA sample?
Mark Clarke
mark_clarke9@yahoo.com
Before we rush the DNA law...
-->