Some believe that new science related to criminal forensics should be used to look at old cases. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

In today's world, there is a debate on whether new advancements in forensic science should be utilized to re-examine old criminal cases. While I agree that there are valid reasons for employing this technology in such situations, I also recognize that there are certain drawbacks that need to be considered.

On one hand, utilizing new scientific forensic techniques in old cases can help protect the privacy and well-being of the victims. Regardless of how much time has passed since the crime was committed, it is evident that unresolved cases leave a lasting impact on the victims, causing emotional trauma. By utilizing advanced technology, investigators can potentially uncover new evidence or re-evaluate existing clues, providing closure and justice to the victims.

Furthermore, in the age of information technology, it is becoming increasingly accessible for everyone to use algorithms and machine learning techniques. This accessibility can greatly aid in the investigation of old cases, as it allows for a more efficient and thorough examination of the available evidence. By utilizing new forensic techniques, law enforcement agencies can improve their chances of identifying the culprits and preventing them from committing further crimes, thus protecting innocent individuals from harm.

However, it is important to acknowledge the drawbacks of employing new forensic science in old cases. Firstly, the cost associated with using the latest technology can be substantial. In cases where the evidence is scarce and difficult to gather, the utilization of information technology can quickly become expensive. Victims and their families may be required to bear the financial burden of employing forensic experts or acquiring specialized equipment to solve the case. For instance, in South Korea, the cost of such services can amount to approximately $1,000 per case, including consultation, data tracking, and recovery.

In conclusion, while I agree that utilizing new forensic technology in old cases can provide numerous benefits, such as protecting victims and preventing further crimes, the cost implications need to be carefully considered. It is essential to ensure that the financial burden does not fall solely on the victims and their families. Further discussions and planning must take place to strike a balance between the need for justice and the practicality of utilizing new forensic science in old cases.

Sample 2:

There are interesting debates surrounding the application of forensic science to reopen old judicial cases. I believe that if there is a good chance of true justice being done, then it is absolutely essential and justified that we consider this option. After all, access to justice is a fundamental right to which every citizen is entitled.

The most significant outcome of taking a second look at old cases based on forensic evidence is the possibility of those wrongly convicted being exonerated for a crime that they were never truly responsible for. One can imagine the joy and happiness this could bring to the families of those wrongly convicted. Moreover, it would also ensure that the actual criminal who is guilty of the crime, is convicted and punished appropriately. 

We also have cold cases which have been reopened and solved, thanks to forensic science. For instance, there was the case of the murder of a 22-year-old man in Delhi that remained unsolved for 8 long years. Despite the police suspecting that he was killed by his bride and her lover, they could not do anything, for lack of evidence. Finally, the case was resolved only after it was handed over to forensic experts.

In conclusion, my viewpoint is that the law enforcement authorities should resort to forensics to reopen and solve the erstwhile, unresolved criminal cases and convict the guilty. Forensic expertise should also be used to reopen old cases, convict the guilty and exonerate the innocents that were accused on account of a lack of genuine evidence. In the ultimate analysis, fair justice is what matters.     

Sample 3:

There has been an ongoing debate about the current emphasis of criminal forensics, with some maintaining that this advancing science should be used to reopen cold cases. In my opinion, the primary focus of this practice should be on deterring future criminals, though past crimes can be looked at in service of fairness.

Those who argue that advances in forensic sciences should be used to reinvestigate cold cases highlight humanitarian reasons. They emphasize that there are many criminal cases where the perpetrators are still at large or have been wrongly identified due to a lack of evidence, partly the result of less developed forensic techniques in the past. As science in general, and forensic technology specifically, develops, the victims of these cold cases and their families can now seek justice, as offenders can be better identified by modern technologies. This is self-evidently justified as those who have been wronged have been waiting for years, with some spending their entire lives without being granted the opportunity to prove their innocence.

Old cases aside, criminal forensics should be primarily exploited to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. This is because with these advances, individuals may rethink committing crimes for an increased fear of being identified and captured, effectively deterring would-be criminals. These novel technologies include techniques such as blood spatter analysis, dental identification, bone analysis, and advanced crime scene recreation. Though this technology can be used with greater certainty to deliver justice for cold cases for humanitarian purposes, its potential is not yet fully realised. With government grants and funding from the private sector for the research, development, and promotion of these criminal forensic techniques, there is a strong likelihood that crime rates will continue to decline for decades to come. This concomitant declining crime rate is arguably one of the greatest achievements in the history of criminal justice.

In conclusion, while old cases can be reinvestigated to bring justice to those who have been wrongfully convicted, forensic sciences should be prioritised for the prevention of future crimes. The future use and popularity of this technology is contingent upon governments and the private sector working in tandem to fund and promote this approach.

Sample 4:

In recent years, there have been many significant advancements in the field of forensic science. Many people are of the perception that newer sciences could be effective in investigating older cases. Despite some marginal concerns in this view, I contend that such recent developments could deliver remarkable breakthroughs.

People who criticize new forensic sciences being tried in past cases point out the high probability that the investigation will hit a dead end. With the passage of time, not only would the older evidence be degraded but also the chances to retrieve new tinformation are marginal. Moreover, any traces of data from unpreserved evidence may raise questions about their credibility as they could be tampered with. Hence, there is only a negligible chance of finding beneficial information to solve past cases.

Nonetheless, there has been an exponential growth in forensics with the advent of newer sciences and many of them proved imperative in many old cases. Compared to the past where it took months to get results of samples from the crime scenes, modern technologies complete most of the analysis in minutes. With advanced sciences, the data drawn could automatically filter out various databases and even shortlist suspects. For instance, many culprits who escaped to foreign lands were tracked down even when they lived there disguising themselves as another person.

In conclusion, it is believed by many that the modern-day sciences in forensic has a role in uncovering many old crimes although some people contend against this view.  Even though there are some minor concerns regarding the success rates of such measures, I argue that the adoption of newer technologies would undoubtedly have a crucial role in uncovering the truth in many past cases.

Sample 5:

Day by day technology takes place in every area, whether art or science fields. Forensics investigation is a tool of the crime control department. It helps through various methods like criminal fingerprints, DNA test and so. In previous cases, inspection by newly developed methods seems to be a waste of money, except in cases that were closed due to insufficient investigation. Further, the essay shall describe in which range I agree with the statement in the following paragraphs.

To begin with, there are several reasons for reopening past cases and investigating them with new methods. The first and foremost reason is that some people are dissatisfied with previous investigations and feel that justice was not served. To provide justice, re-investigation using new technology becomes an essential tool. For example, many cases faced difficulties in gathering evidence, but now, with the help of forensic departments, the pieces of the puzzle are being solved, and the law is catching the real criminals instead of closing cases due to a lack of resources.

However, some cases do not require re-investigation, as they are often reopened for personal or revenge purposes. In such cases, the investigation costs are wasted, and time is squandered. For example, reopening cases can be expensive, and with new cases being registered daily, law firms should prioritize focusing on new cases to control crime, rather than wasting resources on old ones. Additionally, the criminals from old cases may already be dead or have been punished in other cases, so the priority should be addressing new criminal activity.

In conclusion, law firms should use new technology to control crime, and only if certain past cases require it to identify the criminal should the technology be applied. However, before reopening cases, thorough research is needed to ensure the correct use of new technology.

Sample 6:

Owing to the revolutionized era, science has progressed at an exceptional rate. With the advancements of science and technology in the field of criminal forensics, a section of society asserts that this technology will be helpful to re-examine old cases. I extend my support towards the given notion since this practice would be beneficial in a number of ways. 

On the one hand, a plethora of aspects promotes my idea. The primary is the usage of high-tech devices in solving unsolved past offences. In brief, these gadgets aid the investigators to probe the hidden side of crime, such as the usage of fingerprint analysis, microphones, and DNA identifiers. The cops can use such devices to reconsider the old reports. For instance, with the assistance of a fingerprint identifier, the authorities can opt for a biometric scan of the accused site to match the impressions to that of a doubtful person. These gadgets have been proven remarkably accurate and reliable in some cases that have been recently re-explored.

Another factor is in some cases, the wrong person has been charged with a criminal infraction, which a person has not even committed, and this is followed by a delay in justice for the innocents and their families; however, the actual one is roaming freely in the outer world instead of being behind the bars. These technological advancements will help to serve legal justice to the demanding person and bring peace and harmony to society.

Yet another rationale is forensic science reduces crime rates as well since earlier, due to a lack of modern technologies, plenty of illegal activities such as the unwanted trade of drugs and arms were carried out without any restriction; nevertheless, with the advent of forensic science, many real-time pieces of evidence can be gathered which can help to carry out investigation more efficiently. 

On the other hand, criminal forensics has a few demerits as well because the evidence is prone to manipulation which may end up in an unrighteous verdict. It happens especially in old cases. For instance, a hair sample at the crime scene that resembles a suspect's hair gets dressed up in this scientific certainty that is not justified, and it results in wrongful convictions. 

To conclude, after this discussion, this particular branch of science plays a significant role in the field of crime on multiple occasions and serves justice to the guilt-free.

Sample 7:

The use of new science related to criminal forensics in old cases has been a topic of discussion in recent years. Some believe that it can provide new evidence and information that can help to uncover the truth and bring closure to families. However, I strongly disagree with the notion that new science should be used to re-examine old cases.

One of the main reasons for my disagreement is the potential for bias and subjective interpretations of the evidence. New science and technology can provide new information, but it can also lead to subjective interpretations of the evidence. This can result in false conclusions and can lead to further confusion and speculation about the case. Furthermore, the use of new science in old cases can also open up the possibility of wrongful convictions, which can cause harm to individuals and their families.

Another reason for my disagreement is the potential for the revictimization of families and individuals. Reopening old cases and exposing them to new evidence and new interpretations can cause emotional distress for those who have already suffered as a result of the crime. The process of re-examining old cases can also bring new scrutiny and attention to individuals who have moved on from the event and may not be prepared to deal with it again.

In conclusion, I believe that the use of new science in old cases should be approached with caution. While it has the potential to provide new information and evidence, it can also lead to subjective interpretations and false conclusions. The use of new science in old cases can also result in the revictimization of individuals and families who have already suffered. It is important to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of using new science in old cases and to ensure that it is used in a manner that is fair and impartial.

Sample 8:

The use of new science in criminal forensics to examine old cases has become a topic of great interest and debate. Those who support this approach believe that it has the potential to provide new evidence and information that can bring closure to families and restore confidence in the justice system. In my view, I wholeheartedly agree that new science should be used to re-examine old cases.

One of the benefits of using new science in old cases is that it can provide a second chance for justice. Advances in DNA analysis, for example, have led to the exoneration of individuals who were wrongly convicted. This can bring closure to families who have suffered for years without knowing the truth and restore public confidence in the justice system. Furthermore, new science can also help to identify the real culprits, increasing the likelihood of justice being served.

Another advantage of using new science in old cases is that it can bring new light to cases that have already been closed. The implementation of new technology in investigating old crimes can provide new information and evidence that was previously missed. This can help to provide answers for families and bring closure to long-standing cases. Moreover, it can bring new insights into crime and the motive behind it, leading to a better understanding of the case.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the use of new science in old cases can provide a second chance for justice and help to uncover new evidence and information. The implementation of new science in old cases should be done in a responsible manner and with a thorough analysis of the evidence. This will ensure that justice is served and that the use of new science in old cases is done in a manner that is fair and impartial. New science has the potential to bring closure to families, restore public confidence in justice to families, and bring a new understanding to long-standing cases.