abhijithajikumar Some people believe that new science related to criminal forensics should be used to look at old cases. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
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 to the high probability of the investigation hitting a dead end. With the passage of time, not only would the older evidence be degraded but also the chances to retrieve new information 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 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.
