Catherine Faville
Forensic
Current event
Rosenberg, Eli. “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%2BEvidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection.
“Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA” written by Eli Rosenberg describes how officials in New York are arguing over whether or not to authorize the method familial searching. With this method, they would be able to find the relatives of people charged with crimes. Investigators look through a database with the large parameter of identifying people who bare even a close DNA resemblance to a person who may have committed a crime. This method has been useful for the arrest in cases like “so-called Grim Sleeper.” However even with some success, this method has risen many questions, a lot of people find that this method is a invasion of privacy of an innocent group of people, even if they have a blood relation to a suspect. This whole issue goes back and forth, between if the New York State Commission on Forensic Science should go through with the authorization of familial searching.
This is a relevant issue, because it concerns many people who may or share a blood relation to any criminal or suspect. With gene pools spreading wide, many people many casted into the net of criminals for cases undergoing investigation. For example in one case, an innocent man was told that he was a murder suspect after the familial searching, he was eventually cleared. However this type of incident can cause a saga of events if information is read wrong, or a era occurs. These types of mistakes can cause great turmoil to innocent people.
Reading this article I would have liked to have gotten more information as to how they use the familial searching, what exactly they do witht he found information. If this information was added it would have made the article easier to understand and break down. Also the article spent most of its time giving the good side of the method, rather than the opposing sides views. If there was a equalization of both sides of information, it would have allowed the reader to come up with their side of their own volition, rather than from one sided views. The article did however captivate my interest, the idea was backed up by a great wave of information, allowing me to fully understand and appreciate the article.
5 comments:
Kelsey Ravesloot
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%20Evidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection
Rosenberg, Eli. “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%2BEvidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection.
Catherine wrote a review on the article, “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA”. One thing I like that Catherine did was include some background on what the article is about to make it easier for the reader to understand what is happening. I also enjoyed how she included why this topic is relevant to know and relevant to society. Lastly, I liked how Catherine included why people do not like this method, which gives new views on the topic.
One thing that Catherine could have improved on was including more quotes to pull in more information from the article that could be useful. I also wish that Catherine critiqued the article more, especially the cons of the article.
I thought that Catherine’s article was good. One thing that stood out to me the most from the review was that this method keeps going back and forth between if the New York State Commission should go through with the method.
Scott McGrath
Current Event 6
11/06/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%20Evidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection
Catherine did a very good job writing this review of an article titled “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA” and captured everything that the article set out to explain. The article discusses what would happen if the police were to bring relatives who share similar DNA to suspects in for questioning and such. This raises controversy because people do not want to get roped into an investigation without a good cause, especially just because they share DNA with a suspected criminal. She does a very good job explaining how the wider use of DNA can affect the lives of many, and crime in general. Another thing she does well is provide quotes. She adds quotes from the article itself, helping the reader get more details without having to read the actual article itself for another viewpoint. One more thing Catherine did very well was give a well rounded, solid opinion on the matter herself. It makes the review more interesting reading the facts, then getting to see what her actual opinion is about the matter.
Despite all these positives, there are some negatives. For instance, the pacing of the review is a little off. At times, completely different things seem to be talked about in the same sentence. Also, I feel like she could have explained the so called “Grim Sleeper” case, as it grabbed my attention but was not elaborated on.
Overall, I believe this was a very well written review. I am very intrigued by the response this method got from the community. I think Catherine did a very good job.
I read Catherine’s review of the article entitled, “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA” by Eli Rosenberg, and I thought it was overall a very good critique. I thought that Catherine did a very good job of summarizing the article, and her topic was made very clear. I also enjoyed the use of quotes in her critique, which helped strengthen her summary greatly. I also liked how Catherine included her own opinion on the article at the end of the critique in detail, which helped to strengthen it overall.
Although I overall enjoyed Catherine’s critique, there are certain things that could have been improved. I think that Catherine could have included more of her opinion on the article as opposed to just talking about the facts of the article in detail, which would enhance the critique. I also think that correcting a few grammatical errors would make her critique much clearer and easier to follow.
I really enjoyed Catherine’s critique overall, and I found this article to be very interesting. I chose to review Catherine’s critique as I wanted to learn about this article in detail.
Rosenberg, Eli. “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%2BEvidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection.
Eva Cagliostro
November 16, 2017
Rosenberg, Eli. “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 10 Feb. 2017.
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/nyregion/dna-familial-searching-police-new-york.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FDNA%2BEvidence&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection
Catherine wrote a great response to the article “Conflicting Views on a Wider Police Use of DNA” by Eli Rosenberg. She begins with a succinct and informative summary that provides the reader with a solid overview of the article. She is able to effectively and efficiently describe the subject of the article, familial searching, and the controversy that surrounds it. Catherine also did an excellent job of critiquing Rosenberg’s article. I feel that she justifiably criticized the author for not including enough information on the actual science of familial searching and for not balancing both sides of the issue. I also loved how Catherine included the fact that the article “captivated her interest” because as a reader of her response, it made me more excited to read her summary and interpretation of the article.
Although Catherine wrote an awesome current event report, there are two places that she could improve upon. Her response was not written particularly well as there were a large number of spelling and grammar errors. So much so that whatever message she was trying to convey was lost because some of her sentences were so confusing. I also thought that Catherine could have included a quote from the article or somebody who is familiar with DNA or familial searching. In this way, she could have included a statement from a credible source who would have added a new perspective or personality to her writing.
After reading Catherine’s response to Rosenberg’s article, I have learned even more about the controversy surrounding the limits and ethics of DNA. I learned a bit about this through my last current event and now have new knowledge concerning the arguments surrounding familial searching. I will definitely stay updated as the debate continues and as the New York State Commission of Forensic Science makes its important decision concerning its authorization.
Post a Comment