Avery Kane 12/4/17
Current event Forensics A/B
The article “Forensic Technology Developed in UK Will Make It “Impossible” for Criminals to Destroy Fingerprint Evidence” talks about a new innovation in forensic science. One of the most popular ways in which criminals can protect their identity is by using special formulas that erase fingerprints from bullets and other items that may be at the crime scene. Also, evidence can be exposed to extreme temperatures that erase fingerprints. With the help of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), Dr Paul Kelly and the Loughborough University science department developed a way in which it would be impossible for criminals to erase their fingerprints from evidence. Dr Kelly said the technique, which uses a chemical to uncover prints, has the potential for major advancements in forensic science. The DSTL lead scientist on the project, Steve Thorngate said “Through our work with Loughborough University, the ability to significantly increase fingerprint recovery rates from items recovered will mean criminals will find it impossible to conceal or destroy their fingerprints.” These new discoveries will make it easier for police to recover impressions from problematic crime scenes involving materials exposed to high temperatures, immersed in water, or prints left on deformed surfaces.
These new discoveries have changed the forensic world. Now police and forensic scientists at crime scenes around the globe can identify perpetrators even if they remove fingerprints from pieces of evidence. Or if a piece of evidence that may have fingerprints on it has been exposed to cold or hot temperatures.
I enjoyed reading this article and learned a lot about how this new discovery will positively affect the world. But I wish the article explained the ingredients in the formula that would be used to uncover fingerprints.
3 comments:
I really enjoyed Avery's report on Forensic Technology Developed in United Kingdom. The article speaks on one of the most popular ways in which criminals can protect their identity, using special formulas that erase fingerprints from bullets and other items that may be at the crime scene. The evidence can be exposed to extreme temperatures that erase fingerprints. Avery speaks about how Dr Paul Kelly and the Loughborough University science department developed a way in which it would be impossible for criminals to erase their fingerprints from evidence. These types of articles are extremely important because they can help prove a persons innocents which is what the point of collecting evidence and going to trial is, to have justice. Avery really did a great job with this article and summarized it well. A great summarizing sentence was "Now police and forensic scientists at crime scenes around the globe can identify perpetrators even if they remove fingerprints from pieces of evidence."
I would only say that Avery could have put more detail into his current event because it happened to be a little short but besides that it was very entertaining and I enjoyed learning about it. It is good to see the the UK is up to date with forensics as well.
Justin McCarthy
Forensics 12H
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event 10- Commenting on Avery Kane
Due December 7th 2017
https://www.forensicmag.com/news/2017/11/forensic-technology-developed-uk-will-make-it-impossible-criminals-destroy-fingerprint-evidence
Kelly, Dr. Paul. "Forensic Technology Developed in UK Will Make It." Forensic Magazine. 29 Nov. 2017. Web. 06 Dec. 2017.
Upon reading Mr. Kane’s latest article regarding Forensics Science, one again like always, Avery sets up his dilemma regarding the main theme of his review perfectly. By emphasizing the positives and negatives that the impact that technology has with both police departments as well as investigator crews to help solve horrible crimes. There many areas where Avery did a great job, but there are three areas where he showed his power as a writer. The first factor that I enjoyed reading Kane’s review was that not only did he prove his argument regarding the impact technology has on society but he also proved it with not one, but multiple quotations. “The ability to significantly increase fingerprint recovery rates” (Dr. Paul Kelly) has the ability to be a game changer when it comes to tracking down criminals in crime investigations. Another factor which I also thought Avery did a very good job at was emphasizing the importance of appropriate length. Avery, by doing this, you achieve the perfect amount of balance that is sustained in your review. It is evident that by not making your article neither too long or too short, ultimately pays off because it resembles that quality is more important than quantity. A third factor which I also enjoyed was the way you immediately entered your article by establishing a hook which made the reader want to keep reading; such as setting up the main conflict between the UK and their hetiance but their acceptance to rely on technology to help solve crimes.
While Avery did a very good job on his review, I think that there's always room for important even for the greatest because the reality in our world is that no one is perfect. The first area which I think Avery could have done a better job at was going into more detail with first person accounts with their opinion on depending on artificial intelligence to solve major crimes. “The study was carried out in collaboration with the Home Office’s Centre for Applied Science and Technology – the organisation behind the world-recognised Fingermark Visualisation Manual – which ensured that the technology was accurately developed to tackle realistic and challenging scenarios” (Dr. Kelly). By introducing this component, I believe that not only would this add depth but it would add unquestionable validity to your work and to the article that you reviewed. Another area which I think Avery could have improved on was that his word structure in his report. Though it was not often, there were times where Avery made some minor grammar areas, and while it is not a major issue, it is a minor one that is easily fixed. I believe that one way Avery could improve this is simply proofreading his review or comment before posting it, which would help make you into an elite writer as well as helping the reader being able to understand better.
Despite your two minor flaws, overall I really enjoyed your article just like the other articles that I have read this year. The learning impression that I took away from reading your article was that it opened my eyes to the world we are living in now. This is because while technology is getting strong as we are going deeper into the 21st century, humans are becoming a little wary with the overly dependent to use technology not only when it comes to work, but when it comes to solving crimes. The main reason why I chose this article is because I was intrigued with the concept of the UK being reluctant to rely on technology to solve crimes and because I like the source that Avery used. Overall, I believe this article changed my view on individuals relying on technology, since while relying on artificial intelligence is important, there comes a time where we as humans must be wary to rely on technology as a whole because technology itself can be inconsistent at times to solve crimes, not only in the UK, but in the USA as well.
Post a Comment