Nicolette
Petnuch
AP
Biology Review
Helping
Decide Guilt or Innocence Review
The article helping guilt or
innocent was very interesting. It spoke about this new invention called the FST
(Forensic Statistical Tool) is a procedure for a software program that can
study a DNA sample from a crime scene and determine the likelihood that the
sample holds the defendants DNA. Two forensic scientists, Theresa A. Caragine
and Adele A. Mitchell, at the New York City medical examiner’s office, created
the program. How the FST works is that the low likelihood that the sample being
studied is the defendants DNA means that the suspect in question is not likely
to have committed the crime he or she is assumed, but if there is a high
likelihood that the DNA is that of the accused, the person is most likely to
have committed a crime. The article speaks about the FST being used to figure
out if a suspect being accused of shooting someone on a bike is guilty or
innocent. The FST shows that the DNA present is not likely to be the suspect’s
DNA on the left handlebar but the probability of the DNA being the suspects own
DNA on the right handlebar is 972,000 times more likely to be the suspects
instead of just a random person. The reason for this is believed to be that the
quality of DNA collected differed on each handlebar.
This new program is very important
in the rising field of forensics. The more tools that are created with better
accuracy can be the difference between putting a family rest by having a killer
locked away for life, or by having an innocent man set free due to his DNA. Of
course this is very controversial and is being discussed on whether or not the
FST should be able to count as evidence in court. The FST could become more and more accurate
with time and is a great way to improve the study of DNA and its accuracy. In
the future and now, it will be a great tool to help the crime department really
know if someone is innocent or guilty, after all no two people have the same
DNA. (Unless of course, you’re an identical twin)
This article was very informative
and well written. It is really awesome to know that the CSI crime shows really
aren’t all that pretend advanced and that there are inventions that help with
DNA accuracy. It shocked me to see that with this program, it will be able to
essentially give someone a chance at being a free man or in jail for his
crimes. Especially in early times in history, many people died and went to jail
an innocent person. With inventions like the FST, hopefully that will be less
and less likely.
Robbins,
Liz. "Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 Jan. 2013.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/a-forensic-tool-helps-decide-guilt-or-innocence.html?pagewanted=all>.
Marika Chrisanthopoulos
ReplyDeleteAP Biology Commentary
January 10, 2013
Comment on Nicolette’s Review of “Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence”
The article that Nicolette reviewed was an extremely interesting one that described the newfound process of the Forensic Statistical Tool, or FST, and how it can be used to help decide whether a person is found guilty or innocent in trial. FST was recently created by two forensic scientists, Theresa A. Caragine and Adele A. Mitchell, at the New York City medical examiner’s office. The astounding machine uses the likelihood of DNA on a sample being that of the accused, and takes into consideration the positioning of the DNA, the amount, and a few other details in order to predict scientifically whether the accused individual truly committed the crime. The article continues to describe how since the FST is such a new tool, it is not currently being used in court and in real scientific investigations since there is probable error associated with the procedure. One thing that Nicolette does well in her review is that she relates the new procedure to our study of DNA in biology; she mentions that it is a favorable tool in investigations since no two people have the same DNA or fingerprints, including the shape and structure of the finger imprints. Another thing that she does well is describe how the procedure could be used in the future for trials; she mentions how it could aid in putting families “at peace” if the criminal ends up being locked up in jail for committing a crime, and how this tool could aid them in court while they are fighting for their rights. She also critiques the article well and explains how it was well written and how it provides information for the future, including how trials and court cases will become more accurate because of this testing procedure.
One thing that Nicolette could have done better in her review was explain the actual procedure involved in the FST; the explanation she gave about its proponents was a bit vague and hard to follow, including the example involving the bike handlebars. It would have been easier to follow if there were more facts and scientific explanations about the tool and how it works; how does in analyze the DNA? What does the likelihood of the DNA being in a certain area mean for the knowledge of the scientists in relation to the crime? Another thing that Nicolette could have improved on in her review was if she talked a bit more about the field of forensics and what factors are involved in comparison with biology; how are they related? I did like the addition about how all the technology projected on television is, to an extent, possible to achieve and use today. I learned that the new tool of FST, although it is not completely finished in order to be used in crime cases today, is becoming a sensation in recognizing patterns in DNA and identifying them with particular humans. I hope that in the future, the use of FST will become greater, allowing for more cases to be solved accurately.
Timmy Donohue
ReplyDeleteI found Nicolette’s review on the article “Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence” was very interesting. Nicolette did a very good job of providing what the FST was and how it worked. I thought that this was essential to understanding the article, because it is the important invention that is being discussed. I also like how she provided who it was that invented the machine and where it was invented. Finally, I liked how she included an example of the FST in use through the case of a person who was committed of murder from a handlebar. I felt that this was very important because it shows ambiguity in the data because on one handlebar, the DNA of the suspect is present, but on the other it is absent. This is part of the big controversy of the machine in that it gives some seemingly inaccurate data.
Though I felt Nicolette’s review was very good, there were few things that I would have changed. I would have included in the review more detail on how the FST works and the algorithms that it uses to produce the ratio of likelihood that the suspects DNA is present I felt that this detracted from the review because it is really a huge aspect of the article. Secondly, I would have liked to see a little more background on how the inventors came to create the technology for the machine.
The most interesting fact that I learned from Nicolette’s review is that forensic scientists have started to develop trailblazing technologies that would make proving a suspect is guilty or not guilty so much easier and efficient.
ReplyDeleteHelping decide Guilt or Innocence:
Nastaran Soroori
Robbins, Liz. "Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 Jan. 2013. .
The article Helping Decide Guilt or Innocence, review by Nicolette, explains a new technology advancement called FST. The FST is a procedure for a software program that can study a DNA sample from a crime scene and determine the likelihood that the sample holds the defendants DNA. These two scientists, Theresa A. Caragine and Adele A. Mitchell, at the New York City medical examiner’s office, created the program. The way that FST works is that the low likelihood that the sample being studied is the defendants. This new program is very important for this field of study. This program can make the difference between having the wrong person in jail and having the family rest with the idea that the correct suspect was caught. There is a debatable side to this new program as if this program should be used as evidence in court. However, FST should increase in accuracy and can greatly improve the study of DNA. I thought the information was well presented and explained clearly. The program seems to be effective and useful for law enforcements.
The review explained the program in great detail. However, I think the review could have been improved if the article explained how these two scientists came up with this program and if there are any other programs like it that can be used to find a suspect. Generally, I found the article to be very interesting and informative.
After reading this article, I learned that this new program called FST can be used to increase the accuracy in determining who the suspect is. With a higher accuracy in this it can decrease the number of mistakes that takes place within the system.