The role of DNA in criminal indictments in Israel.
DNA evidence
confessions
decision-making
indictments
Journal
Journal of forensic sciences
ISSN: 1556-4029
Titre abrégé: J Forensic Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375370
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2023
Sep 2023
Historique:
revised:
16
06
2023
received:
06
04
2023
accepted:
20
06
2023
medline:
6
9
2023
pubmed:
8
7
2023
entrez:
8
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In their investigations of criminal cases, law enforcement agencies rely heavily on forensic evidence. Numerous studies have examined the scientific and technological advancements of DNA testing, but little evidence exists on how the availability of DNA evidence influences prosecutors' decisions to move cases forward in the criminal justice system. We created a new database by juxtaposing data from the Forensics Division of the Israel Police, which recorded the presence (or not) of DNA profiles in criminal cases (n = 9862), and data on the indictment decision for each case (2008-2019). Rates of indictments are computed for each case, and trend lines are used to present variations in the rates of indictment decisions with and without DNA profiles. Approximately 15% of all criminal cases without DNA presented to the prosecutor's office are subsequently prosecuted, compared with nearly 55% of cases with DNA profiles. The presence of DNA evidence influences the prosecutor's decision to move a case forward in the criminal justice system. Utilizing a scientific approach to prosecute offenders is a welcome development; however, DNA evidence is not infallible, and caution must be exercised in regard to DNA's overuse in the legal system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37421215
doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15327
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1755-1758Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
Références
Damaška M. Evaluation of evidence: pre-modern and modern approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
Sangero B. Safety from false confessions. Crim Law Bull. 2018;54(1):25. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362754
Hirsch A. Threats, promises, and false confessions: lessons of slavery. 49 Howard LJ 31 2005-2006.
McMurtrie J. The role of the social sciences in preventing wrongful convictions. Am Crim Law Rev. 2005;42(4):1271-87.
Scheck BC, Neufeld PJ. Toward the formation of innocence commissions in America. Judicature. 2002;86:98-105.
Umamaheswar J. Wrongful conviction as racialized cumulative disadvantage. Br J Criminol. 2023;63(3):537-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac061
Cassell PG. Balanced approaches to the false confession problem: a brief comment on Ofshe, Leo, and Alschuler. Denv L Rev. 1996;74:1123.
Brooks P. Troubling confessions: speaking guilt in law and literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2000.
Fisher T, Rosen-Zvi I. The confessional penalty. Cardozo L Rev. 2008;30:871.
Levinson J, Domb A, Buchnik E, Ariel B. Scientific evidence in courts of law: an overview. In: Shitrit S, editor. Judicial independence: cornerstone of democracy. Leiden: Brill; 2023. In press.
Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ. The CSI effect: popular fiction about forensic science affects the public's expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics. 2007;47:357-64.
Kremnitzer M. The role of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. Plilim. 1996;5(2):173-87.
Albonetti CA. Prosecutorial discretion: the effects of uncertainty. Law Soc Rev. 1987;21(2):291-313. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053523
Albonetti CA. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc Probl. 1991;38(2):247-66. https://doi.org/10.2307/800532
Wilson T. The promise of behavioral economics for understanding decision-making in the court. Criminol Public Policy. 2019;18(4):785-805. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12461
Henry TK, Jurek AL. Identification, corroboration, and charging: examining the use of DNA evidence by prosecutors in sexual assault cases. Fem Criminol. 2020;15(5):634-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851209407
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases: biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124-31. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Roane KR. The CSI effect: on TV, it's all slam-dunk evidence and quick convictions. Now juries expect the same thing-and that's problem. US News World Rep. 2005;139:43.
Israel Police. Statistical abstract. 2021. Available from: https://www.gov.il/he/departments/publications/reports/police_statistical_abstract_2021. Accessed 20 Jun 2023.
Nivette AE, Zahnow R, Aguilar R, Ahven A, Amram S, Ariel B, et al. A global analysis of the impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions on crime. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(7):868-77.
Butler JM. Fundamentals of forensic DNA typing. Burlington: Academic Press; 2009.
van Oorschot RA, Ballantyne KN, Mitchell RJ. Forensic trace DNA: a review. Investigative Genet. 2010;1(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-1-14
Wickenheiser RA. Trace DNA: a review, discussion of theory, and application of the transfer of trace quantities of DNA through skin contact. J Forensic Sci. 2002;47(3):442-50. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15284J
Kassin SM, Dror IE, Kukucka J. The forensic confirmation bias: problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2013;2(1):42-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
Buchnik E. The attitude of the prosecution to the DNA evidence in criminal law, in light of the scientific, technological and legal developments of the evidence. [dissertation]. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. 2022.
Ariel B, Bland M, Sutherland A. Experimental designs. London: Sage; 2022.