COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, v Paul David CREWS Research Paper

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, v Paul David CREWS - Research Paper ExampleThe field of study study of commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Paul David Crew is among the most valuable perspective pertaining to the use of DNA evidence in solving crime. The sensitive discourse of dupes in DNA gaffes is essential across the entire criminal justice system first beginning with the arrival of the responders at the crime scene and indeed continuing until long after surmises are convicted. All types of victims especially sexual assault victims should be subjected to fair and sensitive treatment with respect and dignity, especially during the army of biological evidence from a wider range of crime scenes, which is now beginning to regularly occur in the United States. Problems regarding the security and seclusion of a victims information in DNA cuticles are a major concern. The Victims DNA profiles are characteristically entered into databases which cause many victims to worry about the priv acy of this information, whether it can be accessed by the perpetrators through the local databases or the internet. There is also concern about whether this technology can be used against victims who whitethorn have committed other crimes, which can possibly result in a decrease in reporting (PLJ, 2012). In this research paper, I chose the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Paul David Crews in which many unique talents pertaining DNA evidence were involved in prosecuting the culprit. I am going to study facets of this case which I deem necessary to mention for the purpose of this research. Here, there is a combination of professional unique talents, the respect, their dignity and strive to foster their commitment to goodness in their work that take to justice. Unity and diversity of people on the free exchange of ideas, on learning, living and working harmoniously is truly the tower of a communitys strength in society as we shall observe in this paper. For the purpose of grasping the whole concept of the case, I allow for briefly touch on other facets of the case other than those pertaining DNA evaluation. It is the professional unbiased performance of each that slowly but surely led to justice (PLJ, 2012). Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, V Paul David Crews In the morning of September 13, 1990, two hikers, Geoffrey Hood and Molly LaRue, were murdered .The woman tied, raped, and stabbed, resulting to her death. Her boyfriend, shot three times. The suspect Paul David Crews was arrested week later and subsequently charged with the murders. There were a number of witnesses who presented themselves to testify. The first witnesses testified seeing the suspect visit a library want a map of the terrain where the couple was murdered while other witnesses testified the suspect seeking directions of the trail that coincidentally was the same with those of the murdered couple. These witnesses openly shared their companionship to the relevant authorities. Some even vividly testified of seeing the suspect wearing the hiking gear belonging to the male victim along with other objects. A ballistic trajectory expert also testified that the handgun possessed by the suspect upon his arrest was the murder weapon which. An FBI DNA expert, after caring out his unique debt instrument came to a conclusion thus testifying that the suspects DNA patterns matched with those obtained from semen samples the female victims vagina. The jury which comprises of carefully selected individuals of varying personalities and background