Organic vs. Inorganic, Essay Example

Evidence is obviously a key component of any crime scene or other investigation.  Two major types of evidence are to be found, namely organic and inorganic evidence.  This analysis looks to define and differentiate these types, in order to approach how they both maintain an important part in an investigation.

Definitions and Differences

Organic evidence forms the first major category of evidence.  This simply refers to carbon compounds that are found in scenes.  For instance, most drugs and toxic agents, biological fluids and stains, ignitable liquid residues, and more fit into the category of organic evidence that may be located.

Perhaps the major advantage of organic evidence is that it can be a significant aid to matching the perpetrator.  However, though it is often conclusive, sometimes there are scientific difficulties in such evidence: “A single hair might belong to a missing woman, but it is coated with conditioner, making microscopic analysis impossible” (NIJ  2003).

The other major type of evidence may be classified as inorganic evidence.  Directly contrasted to organic evidence, inorganic relates to compounds that are composed of other elements on the periodic table; that is, not carbon-based compounds.  Glass, metals (such as bullets), primer residues, and metallic poisons (such as arsenic) may be classified as inorganic evidence at a crime scene.

The advantages of inorganic evidence help investigators in a way not offered by organic evidence.  Take the analysis of firearms involved: this form of inorganic evidence can aid significantly in the reconstruction of how the crime took place, also offering ways to find the criminal.  A common disadvantage with inorganic evidence is that of tampering, as these common elements can be altered.  Also, and directly contrasted with organic evidence, not all inorganic evidence significantly offers to the investigation (as opposed to DNA evidence, for instance).

Significance of Evidence through the Process

The process by which evidence is brought in an investigation is obviously important.  Care must be taken in order to ensure the accuracy and speed of the findings, as it may be critical to find and locate the perpetrator. Taking DNA as an example, a couple of important steps are analyzed in order to provide insight to the overall process.

DNA is one of the most important types of evidence.  A type of organic evidence, it can – beyond reason – identify and confirm the perpetrator or someone at the scene of a crime.  Fluids, such as blood and semen, may allow investigators to obtain a verifiable DNA match.

After fluids are extracted from the scene, they are sent to the DNA laboratory to determine if DNA is present.  Dale and Becker (2007) note that the DNA must first be extracted from the cell, quantified, amplified, and then analyzed to develop a 13 loci short tandem repeat DNA profile.  Chelex, organic, and differential are the three primary types of extraction methods for forensic DNA laboratories.

DNA has been incredibly significant in the courtroom.  Not only can it identify the perpetrator or some other important party, it has also cleared many convicts when this testing was not available.  Fluids in general may also give insight into the person – if no direct match may be made – such as finding a disease or defect that can help in the investigation.

Overall both types of evidence can play vital roles in an investigation.  While organic may be the most helpful and conclusive, inorganic evidence can go a long way to reconstructing the details of a crime.  Both types of evidence maintain a significant role in a crime scene.

References

Dale, Mark W. and Wendy S. Becker.  (2007).  The Crime Scene: How Forensic Science Works.  New York: Kaplan Publishing.

NIJ Journal.  (2003).  “Without a Trace?  Advances in Detecting Trace Evidence.”  NIJ, 249: 2-9.