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?
It is often suggested that new insights from forensic sciences should be applied to review old cases in the criminal justice system. Although I support this idea, I believe such an opportunity should be given to only a limited number of cases.
Admittedly, the justice system is notorious for its biases and flaws. In many cases, innocent people are prosecuted based on witness accounts, flawed evidence or subjective opinions of the prosecutors. Even though all these are important elements in judging a certain case, they are not perfectly reliable, and thus, thousands of people are wrongly convicted of crimes they never committed. Therefore, when existing evidence is reviewed using the advances in science, this helps not only to establish justice for those who were unjustly sentenced but also informs us that the real perpetrators remain at large and are roaming the streets.
However, allowing all cases to be considered in light of new scientific knowledge would put an enormous administrative burden on the justice system. Tens of thousands of cases are decided each year by courts, and reviewing all of these cases would be both prohibitively expensive and inefficient. Therefore, a case should satisfy certain criteria to be eligible for review. Cases in which the decision was based on weak evidence, for example, or the outcome of which was questioned by the convicted individuals deserve to be looked at using new scientific methods and analyses. This way, judicial resources will be used appropriately, at the same time allowing justice to prevail despite the initial wrong conviction.
In conclusion, old criminal cases should be reviewed in order to ensure that no innocent person is punished for others’ wrongdoings. Nevertheless, such a possibility should only be allowed for some instances where there is reasonable evidence to suspect that the decision might have been unjust.
302 words
~40 minutes (including me trying to explain everything 🧐🤯)
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is often suggested that new insights from forensic sciences should be applied to review old cases in the criminal justice system. Although I support this idea, I believe such an opportunity should be given to only a limited number of cases.
Admittedly, the justice system is notorious for its biases and flaws. In many cases, innocent people are prosecuted based on witness accounts, flawed evidence or subjective opinions of the prosecutors. Even though all these are important elements in judging a certain case, they are not perfectly reliable, and thus, thousands of people are wrongly convicted of crimes they never committed. Therefore, when existing evidence is reviewed using the advances in science, this helps not only to establish justice for those who were unjustly sentenced but also informs us that the real perpetrators remain at large and are roaming the streets.
However, allowing all cases to be considered in light of new scientific knowledge would put an enormous administrative burden on the justice system. Tens of thousands of cases are decided each year by courts, and reviewing all of these cases would be both prohibitively expensive and inefficient. Therefore, a case should satisfy certain criteria to be eligible for review. Cases in which the decision was based on weak evidence, for example, or the outcome of which was questioned by the convicted individuals deserve to be looked at using new scientific methods and analyses. This way, judicial resources will be used appropriately, at the same time allowing justice to prevail despite the initial wrong conviction.
In conclusion, old criminal cases should be reviewed in order to ensure that no innocent person is punished for others’ wrongdoings. Nevertheless, such a possibility should only be allowed for some instances where there is reasonable evidence to suspect that the decision might have been unjust.
302 words
~40 minutes (including me trying to explain everything 🧐🤯)