We choose the topic of Forensic Anthropology because it plays an important role in establishing the cause of death in an investigation. The goal of our paper was to prove that finding valid evidence plays a key role in allowing judges and the jury, to correctly accuse those who have committed a crime. There have also been cases of humans versus animals where identification may be difficult due to fragmentation of the bones. Although there have been multiple problems with Forensic Anthropology, it has improved over the years and anthropologists can now identify through a group of traits that include; race, sex, age, and stature of a human. Anthropologists are also trying to improve on their techniques and tools used at crime scenes that will correctly acquire the right evidence. Their goal is to improve on collecting evidence from crime scenes and to stop putting innocent people behind bars.
There are many invalid methods of finding evidence used in the court today. A few examples are DNA, fingerprint, hair samples, and bite marks. Everything at a crime scene is variables that anthropologists have to consider to build a story and prove who is innocent and who isn’t. Forensic Anthropologists are taught to evaluate environmental conditions that might alter the evidence in a way that affects the outcome of the case. Some invalid methods that I mentioned can be used validly in the court of law. Hair analysis doesn’t let you know who the person is but it can tell you details about the person.
It can show how old the person may be or the ethnicity of the person. At the same time, hair analysis is not one hundred percent spot on because there have been cases of evidence being closing confused with hair from an animal. Another method they use to find evidence that is sometimes invalid is DNA fingerprinting. There have been cases where individuals have been falsely accused with their fingerprint when they never were involved with the incident. Although this happens often, forensic anthropologists still use it because it provides base evidence on who the criminal is.
127 our experts are availableright now
While searching for information about forensic anthropology, we are also looking for answers to our question about forensic anthropology and those questions are what type of evidence is valid and could be used in a court trial? And what type of evidence is valid and could be used in a court trial? Almost everything that can be seen in a crime scene can be seen as evidence that paints a picture of what happened, but the main evidence that investigators are looking for are the ones that can give a direction to the perpetrator/s. To simplify this further the investigators are mostly looking at fingerprints, hair samples, fibers, DNA, bite marks, etc.
In the past, the investigator doesn’t have the tools to analyze the right evidence found in the crime scene but by using the evidence found such as fingerprints, DNA, hair, bite marks and many more we can find the right person who actually committed the crime rather than convicting a person that is innocent. If someone was to go to court like a lawyer/prosecutor using these evidence then they are more likely going to get a conviction. That is why courts should allow this certain DNA evidence to be able to find the right person instead of the wrong one. From using the five academic journal and accounts of past wrongly convicted cases we can say that certain types of DNA evidence should be valid in courts because it can make sure that the justice can be served to the person who did the crime and be able to exonerate the person who was wrongly convicted.
In our part one of the paper, we used five academic journals to provide support for our hypothesis. One of the articles that we reviewed was talking about fingerprint and how it is not perfect. While reading, the results say that we should not always rely on fingerprints to solve cases because sometimes fingerprints can be read wrong, other people might have identical fingerprints, can hold bias, etc. The article was looking through the negative of fingerprints, but say if used correctly fingerprints can help find the culprit who did the crime. Even if fingerprints are not always perfect we can say that fingerprints are an essential part of forensic anthropology, without fingerprints it would be harder to solve crimes and that is one reason why fingerprints are important especially when trying to solve the crime. (Matthew Harwood)
The next article is about hair analysis and how a hair sample can help find details of a person who was in the scene as the crime was happening. The problem that (Sara Reardan) the author (Sara Reardan) have with hair samples is investigators jump to conclusion and don’t correctly look at the hair samples, in one instance a person was convicted of murder because the investigators were adamant that it belonged to the suspect, but it took a mitochondrial DNA test to prove the person was innocent. Forensic tools should be completely examined before someone can make a conclusion because if evidence is not analyzed thoroughly it can lead to someone being wrongly convicted. In the end, another look at the evidence and using a DNA analysis saved the person and set him free. We
The third article is about bite marks, this type of evidence is harder to use and identify, but there are cases where bite marks were used to find people responsible for the crime. Most of the time bite marks are not used because it is hard to actually use and in this study, the author is testing the reliability of bite marks. The author Balko is suggesting that bite marks should be used sparingly because there is evidence that points that bite marks are not too reliable since it is hard to analyze.
In the findings, the study is suggesting not to use bite mark as seen as unreliable and this suggestion disagrees with our hypothesis about types of evidence should be valid in court and one of those is bite marks. There is evidence that is being discussed on whether the type of evidence is reliable and should it be used, this is one of that evidence. Our hypothesis for this topic is certain types of DNA are not valid in courts resulting in criminals being wrongly convicted. Now that technology has gone up we can use other forms of evidence to make sure that no person can be wrongly convicted for something they didn’t do.
The certain types of DNA that the courts should make valid is DNA, fibers, fingerprints, hair analysis, bite marks etc. The reason why they should do this is because in the past the technology wasn’t up to par from now since the investigators have not as much to use before that in the past, with the lack of new evidence the investigators and prosecutors are convicting an innocent person and forcing them to go to prison for a long time.
If the courts use the new evidence such as DNA, fibers, fingerprints, hair analysis, bite marks, etc we would be able to set free the people who were wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit. If you look at our findings there are times when we can identify the fingerprint, hair, fibers, bite marks we can find the right person that actually did the crime instead of putting an innocent person in jail for a crime they didn’t commit. A fingerprint can be used to compare and contrast the person accused and the fingerprints found in the crime scene to clear their name.
Another evidence is bite marks where we can compare and find the right set of teeth that the bite mark belongs to and we can use that as a base and a general idea on who might be the one who made the bite mark. We can also compare hair samples from the crime scene to people to look for the matching hair. This evidence can help get the right person and give justice to the people who are wrongly convicted and from our findings what we hypothesize could be used to help the courts put the right person in jail.
The evidence can be effective when catching the culprit, but this DNA evidence has their faults as well such as bite marks, hair analysis, fingerprints etc. Sometimes the forensic tools to catch the perpetrator are wrong, as a result, innocent are put in jail. Nothing is ever perfect so there are times that the tools we rely on making mistakes, but this is the best ways to find the right person who committed the crime. And even though mistakes are made sometimes, the percentage of putting the right person in jail is more than the mistakes made in using the forensic tools.
There is some evidence like certain types of DNA are not valid in courts resulting in criminals being wrongly convicted, the evidence that can help the courts find the real perpetrator is by using what is found in the crime scene such as fingerprints, DNA, hair analysis, bite marks and many more to clear the names of the wrongly convicted and put the right person behind bars.
In conclusion, it is important to make sure the correct person is behind bars not only for the sake of the wrongly convicted but the family and friends of this person as well. It is simply not fair to take years of life away from someone simply due to “user error.” We are happy to see change within the recent decade towards helping the wrongly convicted be free from prison, along with the DNA advancement taking place in labs to ensure the credibility of it before it is brought upon courts.
