Encouraging advances are being made in the field of forensic science. The experts and practitioners in this discipline have invested heavily in developing techniques that facilitate the resolution of criminal cases. DNA and hair evidence are among the specific advances that underscore the progress that forensic science continues to make. Today, law enforcement and investigative agencies in the US and across the globe are relying on the two types of evidence to nab criminals. Given the critical role that DNA and hair evidence plays in criminal procedures, it would be interesting to determine which of the two forms of evidence is superior. An argument can be made that hair evidence is far more important than DNA evidence.
It is true that DNA and hair evidence are essential tools that facilitate criminal investigations and prosecutions. However, as noted above, hair evidence appears to be more important. Among the ways that hair evidence is superior to DNA evidence is that the former offers far more information. On the one hand, DNA evidence is primarily used to identify individuals. For example, through a scrutiny of semen, investigative officers are able to use DNA to identify perpetrators of sexual crimes. On the other hand, hair evidence serves multiple functions. In addition to enabling officers to identify suspects, this evidence also allows the officers to establish how a crime occurred (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, n.d). For instance, by examining hair, it is possible for the officers to determine if the hair was removed by force. This determination makes it possible for the officers to reconstruct crimes. Additionally, rigorous examination of hair evidence helps investigative officers to place suspects, victims and other parties to a case in particular locations. For example, using hair evidence, officers manage to place suspects at crime scenes. Therefore, given its multiple applications, hair evidence is far more important than DNA evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For years, DNA has served as the primary evidence that officers use to link individuals to cases. However, hair evidence is rapidly emerging as an alternative to DNA evidence. Parker et al. (2016) conducted a study to establish the role that hair evidence can play in human identification. The main finding that they reported in their text is that through an analysis of hair proteins, it is indeed possible to accurately identify individuals. This finding is indeed significant as it shows that hair evidence is highly accurate. It can be combined with DNA evidence to lend additional credibility and strength to cases. While the accuracy of hair evidence is not necessarily better than that of DNA evidence, it shows that the former can be used as an acceptable alternative to the latter.
One of the challenges that investigative officers often encounter regards the collection of DNA evidence. For example, it may be difficult for an officer to obtain blood or other fluids from which DNA evidence is derived. This is a challenge that hair evidence overcomes. Humans routinely shed hair. Consequently, it is fairly easy for officers to find and collect hair evidence at crime scenes. This is according to Ong (2016) who authored an informative article that sheds light on the increasingly vital role that hair evidence is playing in forensic science. Ong adds that DNA evidence can be contaminated fairly easily. When contaminated, this evidence could compromise cases and result in wrongful convictions. Therefore, since its integrity is easier to safeguard and it can be collected with ease, hair evidence is more important than DNA evidence.
The discussion this far has attempted to highlight the superiority of hair evidence over DNA evidence. While there is a strong case to be made in support of the position that the discussion has adopted, it is important to consider the counter-argument. Could it be that DNA evidence is actually more important than hair evidence? Data provided by the Innocence Project suggests that this is the case. According to this organization, the use of hair evidence led to wrongful convictions. The Innocence Project made this determination after reviewing data provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI reviewed 268 cases in which hair evidence played a crucial role. In 95% of these cases, it was determined that the hair evidence had led to wrongful convictions (“Overturning Wrongful Convictions”, n.d). This statistic is indeed worrying and should discourage the adoption of hair evidence. It is true that there have also been dozens of cases where DNA evidence is responsible for wrongful convictions. However, given that DNA evidence is routinely used, it can be concluded that in most cases, it is far more reliable and accurate than hair evidence. Therefore, questions can be raised about the argument that hair evidence is more important than DNA evidence.
Hair evidence is quickly falling out of favor. This is among the messages that Drahl (2017) conveys in her text. She argues that hair evidence is highly unreliable and does not allow for the accurate identification of individuals. Additionally, according to Drahl, there lack standard guidelines for the examination of hair evidence. Drahl proceeds to accuse investigators such as those from the FBI of overstating the reliability of hair evidence. In essence, Drahl suggests that hair evidence is based largely on pseudoscience and that its continued application is improper. The various arguments that Drahl presents serve to invalidate the belief that hair evidence is superior.
In closing, the debate about the supremacy of hair evidence over DNA evidence continues. On the one hand, there is some indication that hair evidence is better than DNA evidence. In addition to being easier to collect, hair evidence is less prone to contamination. On the other hand, DNA evidence remains the gold standard in forensic investigation. What is difficult to deny is that both types of evidence are vital. For the debate to be settled, there is need for forensic scientists to work closely with law enforcement to improve the reliability and accuracy of the two types of evidence.
References
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. (n.d). hair. BCA. Retrieved September 16, 2019 from https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/forensic-science/Pages/trace-hair.aspx
Drahl, C. (2017). Forensic hair analysis has a long road back to courtroom glory. Forbes. Retrieved September 16, 2019 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmendrahl/2017/04/05/forensic-hair-analysis-has-a-long-road-back-to-courtroom-glory/#718bebe1144c
Ong, S. (2016). Hair analysis could become an important alternative to DNA testing. Independent. Retrieved September 16, 2019 from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hair-dna-forensic-measure-crime-scene-fbi-science-testing-a7433331.html
Overturning wrongful convictions involving misapplied forensics. (n.d). Innocence Project. Retrieved September 16, 2019 from https://www.innocenceproject.org/overturning-wrongful-convictions-involving-flawed-forensics/
Parker, G. J., Leppert, T., Anex, D. S. et al. (2016). Demonstration of Protein-Based Human Identification Using the Hair Shaft Proteome. Plos One. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160653
