PB2B

The journal articles I chose were Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis and DNA evidence in criminal law: new developments. These articles examine the reliability of DNA evidence in forensic science and have many similarities regarding their content and construction, however their arguments are essentially opposites of each other. DNA evidence in criminal law: new developments poses the argument that the statistical means by which forensic labs deduce DNA profiles is flawed while Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis argues that DNA in forensics is "key to the conviction or exoneration of suspects and the identification of victims of crimes, accidents and disasters." One similarity between them is the way they study this phenomenon. Both college professors must be accessing some document or article that lays out very detailed technicalities about specific cases in order to know more information regarding the forensics of the case. Another similarity in how they have studied this phenomenon would be the fact that they both go into great detail about the historical landmarks and events leading up to the present to give the reader context. Surely they didn't know all of this information off hand, so they both needed to do extensive research in this field to get a full understanding of how things have changed and how this technology has evolved from the past. The most obvious way in which they have studied DNA differently is the fact that Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis gets into the nitty gritty scientific discourse that would be more interesting to a geneticist than to a researcher like me. Our other source provides statistics on lab error and false matches but never gets into the level of scientific detail as Encoded Evidence. Another overarching similarity between the two articles is the way they describe concepts. For example, both articles will define a word, then give a real world example of the concept at hand. Another similarity in how they describe concepts is the fact that they will both include a statistic of probability after introducing an idea to help the reader visualize the concept. This is popular in biology and genetics (1 in X chance of something.) A difference in how they describe concepts would be how in Encoded Evidence the authors make an ostensible effort to tie in other fields of study such as history and criminal justice while focusing more on the scientific aspects of DNA in forensics, while DNA evidence in criminal law mostly just focuses on court cases and details of crime, sometimes giving scientific background information. While reading Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis, the question we are presented with is are our means of determining a DNA profile reliable? The answer is apparently up for debate. If we focus more on the construction and not the content of these sources, we will find even more similarities. For example, the more easily spottable conventions of these two sources would be the fact that they both start us off with the scholarly "abstract" where we get a short and sweet summary of the article in scarce detail. Another quick clue into genre would be the citation style, these articles and others like them tend to almost always use MLA style citations. To get deeper into defining genre, we can look at affordances, constraints, and purpose. The fact that Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis is so much longer than our other source, it can afford to go into much greater detail which ultimately makes it sound more convincing. The fact that DNA evidence in criminal law: new developments is so short, it seems constrained to only speak on a particular subject briefly, while Encoded Evidence can afford to go off on many kinds of tangents. An affordance of our shorter article however is that while reading it, it might seem more convincing just because of the hyperfocus on court rulings and crime specifics over scientific jargon. It almost feels like we are actually in the courtroom and the defense attorney is fiercely presenting evidence to the jury. This is perhaps a constraint of our more lengthy article since it views and discusses this phenomenon through the discourse of a genetics professor, making the article harder to read and understand for someone not in the field. This might be considered an affordance too, but not for my research purposes. The audience for Encoded Evidence would be other genetics scholars with an interest in how DNA is utilized in the real world. Its secondary audience would be people like me, someone doing research in the criminal justice field who maybe doesn't want an overwhelming amount of information on the scientific specifics of genetics and DNA. What clued me in most to this audience is the fact that it is written by a genetics professor with the help of a criminology professor. Our other source is written solely by a criminology and law professor, cluing us into a more criminal justice research oriented audience like me or other people in that field. Perhaps a biologist or geneticist would take interest in DNA evidence in criminal law: new developments too since it describes the faults and grey areas of DNA evidence. Both of these sources can be characterized as scholarly journal articles taking a stance on forensic DNA evidence. We have pointed out many rhetorical similarities already, but they are also similar in how they are structured. Both articles give us a bit of history and context before they get into their arguments, and both articles sometimes give slivers of accreditation to the other side before refuting it again. Another similarity in how they are structured is how they never focus too long on one topic or area of research. It is hard to read advanced scientific discourse for pages on end, so Encoded Evidence will break itself up by addressing other areas of study and other topics to keep the reader's attention as they read. The same is true for DNA evidence in criminal law even if it is a more narrowly focused article. If we focus on the articles as a whole, what is most important about them is who wrote them. Knowing this information before hand is especially important since it will give you an idea of how the article is written, what ground the article will cover, and what kind of research the article will cover. What I found most interesting is how in Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis the article is able to get into so much more academic territory since it is not just written by a criminology professor, but also a genetics professor. I found it interesting how they were able to smoothly weave in other areas of study while maintaining the articles purpose, while DNA evidence in criminal law keeps the focus mainly on one area of research while sometimes covering more academic ground. I guess the old saying is true, two heads is better than one!