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?
Should modern methods of investigating criminal events be deployed to scrutinize past events, or not, is a matter of profound debate, and it is felt that there is a need to critically analyze this statement.
Those proposing this arrangement feel that incorporating modern investigative tools to delve into past cases of criminal intent could help unravel the mysteries associated with those incidents, leading to identification of the real culprits, and also uncover the circumstances under which such events occurred, clearing the air of doubt about the perpetrators. To corroborate, the-state-of-the-art methods of examining old unlawful acts have revealed that Abraham Lincoln did not die of a bullet wound, but due to the subsequent surgical procedure committed mistakenly on him.
Similarly, this could aid in resolving the unsolved cold cases where the lawbreakers have been at large. Since the up-to-date tools of criminal analysis use various tools: ballistics and DNA investigation, investigators may be able to reach the offenders accurately and apprehend them. This could come in as a respite for those wrongly accused for a criminal act, due to absence of concrete evidence.
Nevertheless, those cynical of such a proposal feel that despite enthusiasm among supporters of this suggestion, such an examination might not yield desired outcomes since with times, the surroundings where a crime was committed may have changed and those involved in such endeavors might have perished. Even if some tangible outcomes are achieved, the outcomes, convictions, and time lost cannot be returned.
Overall, even though the critics do have a valid view, examining past criminal events with the help of newly discovered investigative mechanism can help unearth numerous mysteries associated with those crimes, and also help amass a knowledge resource. Thus, I completely subscribe to this notion.
