Showing posts with label National Insitute for Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Insitute for Justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Comparison of Fingerprint Detection Report by National Institute of Justice
A variety of light sources and reagents are available for the detection and identification of latent fingermarks. The National Institute of Justice released this study recently. The study was undertaken to explore the optimum light and filter combinations of laser and light-emitting diode (LED) light for use with indanedione and two new chemical reagents, genipin and lawsone.The light sources utilized were Coherent® TracER™ lasers operating at 460nm, 532nm and 577nm and the Rofin Polilight Flare Plus LED operating at 505nm.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Debating DNA Collection
DNA helps law enforcement investigate and prosecute crime, but the new trend of preconviction DNA collection raises serious Fourth Amendment issues for the criminal justice community.
Policymakers are increasingly coming to grips with legal issues related to taking DNA samples from people who have not been convicted of crimes.
The practice of taking DNA samples from convicted criminals is now largely uncontroversial. The courts have routinely upheld laws that authorize DNA collection from both current and former convicts, and the resulting databases of DNA have become powerful tools to analyze forensic evidence collected from crime scenes. The databases help to clear innocent suspects and redirect law enforcement officials away from unproductive investigations. They also help to convict guilty criminals and clear the wrongfully convicted.
A trend that is causing significant debate is gathering DNA samples from people who are arrested but not convicted. About 20 states and the federal government have passed legislation that requires DNA collection upon arrest. This legislation has raised concerns that crime laboratories may be unable to manage an influx of samples from a new source and that preconviction DNA collection may violate Fourth Amendment privacy guarantees.
Some people worry that collecting DNA creates the potential for abuse of genetic information stored in databases. Others point out that the federal and state privacy laws and penalties that apply to crime labs are stringent — far more stringent than the rules governing private entities that collect blood and saliva for medical or insurance purposes. Additionally, crime labs process only the DNA that applies to human identification. They do not process DNA that identifies predisposition to diseases. Indeed, most crime labs are incapable of doing that kind of DNA processing.
Full article by Sarah B. Berson can be found here.
Policymakers are increasingly coming to grips with legal issues related to taking DNA samples from people who have not been convicted of crimes.
The practice of taking DNA samples from convicted criminals is now largely uncontroversial. The courts have routinely upheld laws that authorize DNA collection from both current and former convicts, and the resulting databases of DNA have become powerful tools to analyze forensic evidence collected from crime scenes. The databases help to clear innocent suspects and redirect law enforcement officials away from unproductive investigations. They also help to convict guilty criminals and clear the wrongfully convicted.
A trend that is causing significant debate is gathering DNA samples from people who are arrested but not convicted. About 20 states and the federal government have passed legislation that requires DNA collection upon arrest. This legislation has raised concerns that crime laboratories may be unable to manage an influx of samples from a new source and that preconviction DNA collection may violate Fourth Amendment privacy guarantees.
Some people worry that collecting DNA creates the potential for abuse of genetic information stored in databases. Others point out that the federal and state privacy laws and penalties that apply to crime labs are stringent — far more stringent than the rules governing private entities that collect blood and saliva for medical or insurance purposes. Additionally, crime labs process only the DNA that applies to human identification. They do not process DNA that identifies predisposition to diseases. Indeed, most crime labs are incapable of doing that kind of DNA processing.
Full article by Sarah B. Berson can be found here.
Firearm Examiner Training Program
Designed as a training tool by the National Institute for Justice for use in conjunction with traditional hands-on mentoring, this program provides the knowledge component for training new examiners. It may also be used as a continuing education tool for current firearm examiners.
The purpose of this module is to explain how this program may be used and to clarify trainer and trainee roles and expectations. Information is provided regarding the use, benefits, and limitations of e-Learning.
Training can be found here.
The purpose of this module is to explain how this program may be used and to clarify trainer and trainee roles and expectations. Information is provided regarding the use, benefits, and limitations of e-Learning.
Training can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)