# data[].attributes.body
1. Do you think countries should have a database of DNA or fingerprints? How does what you learned about in this unit link to the Big Idea: A fair and steady society is organized so that no one suffers unduly for the benefit of others?

2. How important do you think science is to the organization of society and ensuring that No one is treated unjustly?

3. If a suspect has had their DNA or fingerprints sampled, should this information be

allowed to be kept on file, even if the person has been found to be innocent?

4. Do you think scientific evidence can always be trusted?

5. As science has advanced, criminal cases have been reopened and convicted criminals

have been retried due to investigators now being able to find more evidence, for

example by analyzing DNA on a clothing sample. What significance does this have to

those countries where the death penalty is still an option?

# data[].attributes.body
1  DNA may be considered a better option since it is more detailed and provides more information, but at the same time it consumes more time and resources. Whereas fingerprints are easy to collect and analyze which makes it valuable in law enforcement. Whether countries should have a database of DNA or fingerprints depends on various factors including privacy concerns, ethical considerations, and the balance between public safety and civil liberties.

2   Advancements in science, particularly in areas like forensic analysis, contribute to ensuring a fair and stable society by minimizing wrongful convictions and preventing individuals from suffering unjustly in the legal system. This promotes confidence in the fairness of the legal process and upholds the principle that no one should bear undue suffering for the benefit of others.

3     Science plays an essential role in society to make fair decisions through evidence based decision making and develop better technologies to treat everyone fairly. It also helps us understand human behavior, which makes it easy to solve problems such as inequality.

4   Yes, The sampled DNA or fingerprint should be allowed to be kept on file. The file may have some relevance to future cases which is why it should be allowed to be kept. Although it all depends on the country's privacy laws and the individual's requests.

5   Scientific evidence is often reliable, although it is not perfect. It is prone to human error, biases, and scientific limitations. Thorough evaluation and verification by researchers help to reduce such risks, but caution and examination are required to ensure the legitimacy of scientific discoveries.

6  The significance of scientific advancements in criminal cases, particularly in countries where the death penalty is still an option, highlights the need for caution, accountability, and a commitment to upholding the principles of justice and human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
1.The decision to maintain DNA or fingerprint databases involves balancing public safety, privacy, and ethical considerations. While they can aid law enforcement and national security, there are concerns about privacy, data misuse, and ethical implications that must be carefully addressed.

2.What I've learned in this unit relates to the big idea by emphasizing the importance of balancing societal benefits with individual well-being. It highlights the need for fair and equitable systems that minimize undue suffering for the advantage of others, aligning with the principle of creating a just and stable

society for all.

3.Science plays a crucial role in shaping society and promoting justice by providing evidence-based solutions, fostering innovation, and informing policy decisions. It helps in addressing inequalities, promoting fairness, and ensuring that decisions are based on objective data rather than biased assumptions, thus contributing to a more just and equitable society.

4.No, the DNA or fingerprint information of individuals found innocent should not be kept on file to respect their privacy and rights. It's important to uphold the presumption of innocence and protect individuals from potential misuse of their personal information, ensuring their fair treatment under the law.

5.Scientific evidence, while generally reliable, is not infallible. It can be influenced by various factors such as bias, limitations in research methodologies, or incomplete data. Therefore, critical evaluation and peer review are essential to ensure the trustworthiness of scientific evidence.

6.The advancements in science leading to the reopening of criminal cases have significant implications for countries with the death penalty. It highlights the potential for wrongful convictions and the irreversible nature of the death penalty, emphasizing the need for caution and ensuring that convictions are based on the most reliable and accurate evidence available.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The idea of countries having a database of DNA or fingerprints raises important ethical and privacy considerations. These databases present issues with individual rights, data security, and potential misuse of personal information, even if they can be useful for law enforcement in solving crimes and identifying culprits.

2. The unit explores the role of scientific advancements in forensic science, particularly DNA analysis, in preventing wrongful convictions, promoting accountability and transparency, enhancing public safety without sacrificing individual rights, and driving policy reforms. DNA evidence has led to the exoneration of wrongfully convicted individuals, upholding principles of fairness and justice.

3. Science plays a crucial role in the organization of society and in ensuring that no one is treated unjustly. It provides the foundation for evidence-based decision-making in a number of areas, such as criminal justice, healthcare, public policy, and environmental protection. Societies may detect problems, understand difficult situations, and create workable answers through scientific inquiry and analysis.

4. No, DNA or fingerprints data from people who have been proven innocent should not be kept on file as it raises serious concerns about civil liberties, privacy, and the possible misuse of personal information.

5. When scientific information is gathered using exacting procedures, peer-reviewed studies, and ethical guidelines, it is typically regarded as trustworthy and dependable. But it's crucial to understand that science is an investigation and improvement process, and that any one study or set of results may occasionally contain bias, errors, or other restrictions.

6. Scientific technological advances, especially in forensic science like DNA analysis, have a big impact on the way justice is served and whether or not the death penalty is used in countries where it is still an option.

# data[].attributes.body
1. DNA is something that is very useful in identification. Since the discovery of DNA identification, security has increased a lot in countries and criminals are more easily found. So yes, countries should have a DNA database. Also, this is related to our big idea because forensic science can help in the identification of DNA left behind on a crime scene.

2. Science is one of the most important things in our life, this is also true for justice. science can help find the suspect using key information left behind on the scenes to identify the criminal. Without science, human hair would remain as hair and not a way to find culprits.

3. Yes, even if a person is found to be innocent once, they will not always remain innocent. It is not something that will effect their private lives as well so keeping it will not be bad.

4. No, nothing is ever perfect in life and science is not an exception. Though it is a very trustable source, doing our own research on topics wouldn't hurt.

5. Since science has developed so much since before, criminals are now being brought to justice, this is great in countries where the death penalty is not there, the criminals will be punished but not too badly. But for countries with the death penalty, it raises a problem. I believe that if the criminal has done something deserving of immediate death, then kill them, otherwise if it is not as serious, see their history and check if they have improved, if yes life sentence, if no , death penalty

-Riwaz Pantha