Abstract: 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.
(© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Forensic Sciences published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Academy of Forensic Sciences.)
References: 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.
Processing Request
No Comments.