Criminal Justice Technology: DNA Testing - Research Paper Example

 Criminal Justice Technology: DNA Testing Section I: Introduction Emergent technology has impacted on every aspect of the modern human life, criminal justice being no exception. The police administration, counter terrorism and the courts, among other bodies in the criminal justice system, have made use of robots, advanced cameras and information technology to uncover and inculpate criminal offenders to a greater magnitude and accuracy than traditional systems accorded. Leveraged on improved surveillance, investigation and analysis procedures, such new technologies include biometric technologies, data mining, DNA typing, location tracking body armour, video surveillance networks, force computer simulators and inter-agency radios (Cole & Smith, 2011). This paper reviews secondary sources to analyse the application of DNA testing as an emergent technology in criminal justice. A review of the operation of the technology would be discussed, hence the analysis of its effectiveness and limitations, concluding with improvement recommendations. Section II: DNA as Applied in Criminal Justice Developments in genetics have played a critical role in various aspects of human life. The criminal justice system was among the earliest areas to be impacted by such developments because of the polymorphism and durability of genetic material (Cole, 2007). Any biological material collected from the scene of crime could be remarkably significant for investigations and consequent trials. The key to successful use of genetics for justice administration is the deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, which is a fundamental building block of the entire human genetic makeup. The history of DNA technology could be traced back to England where it was first developed in 1985. This technology has delimited previous challenges regarding identification as it provides specific and unique profile, which VARSHA (2006) likens to thumb impression. This has made DNA testing widely adopted in resolving paternity disputes and criminal cases. DNA could be extracted from varied sources, including teeth, hair, bone, blood and saliva. With the human body having numerous DNA copies, even a minuscule bodily tissue or fluid could provide useful information. As such, Machado and Silva refer to DNA as “the gold standard for identifying individuals” (2012, 1). Therefore, DNA testing was adopted in criminal justice to help in accurate identification of those present, and thus involved, in a crime from their biological traces from a crime scene. Hence, the invention of DNA testing is beneficial in detecting, preventing and deterring crime. DNA testing could be used in two ways in the administration of criminal justice. It could be used in situations where the suspect is known. In this case, a sample of the DNA from the suspect would be compared to the evidence collected from the crime scene. The results would almost accurately establish if the suspect was at the scene of crime and even further determine whether the crime was committed by the suspect. The second scenario applies when the suspect is unknown. Here, the biological evidence collected from the scene of crime would be analysed and thereafter compared to the profiles of offenders contained in a DNA database to aid in the identification of the perpetrator. Using DNA databases could further enable the linking of the collected biological evidence to other crimes (Lazer, 2006). This is how New York authorities linked a man to over 22 sexual assaults in 1999 (Cole, 2007). DNA testing is thus confirmatory or identifier. In addition, post-conviction DNA testing has also benefitted criminal justice. This entails the provision of an avenue for overturning convictions for prisoners who have been wrongfully convicted (Steinback, 2008). It has become a critical aspect of DNA testing, the Innocence Project reporting the exoneration of 268 prisoners as of April 2011 using this technology (James, 2012). Each state has its legislation regarding post-conviction DNA testing with some confining it to conviction of specific offences while others allowing it for any conviction. Legislation also varies on the preservation of biological evidence after conviction, this being a critical factor for accuracy of post-conviction testing. Section III: Analysis of DNA Testing In criminal justice, both samples collected from a crime scene and a suspect are crucial for extracting and analysing for specific DNA markers. According to VARSHA (2006), DNA markers refer to small DNA probes which bind to a corresponding sequence in a given DNA sample. The distinct pattern that identifies an individual would be created with a series of probes binding to a sample of DNA. A comparison of such DNA profiles would establish whether the sample of the suspect matches the sample from the collected evidence. Should a match in the patterns be established, then, the suspect could have contributed to the collected evidence sample. Otherwise, the suspect would be assumed innocent. Scientists consider DNA testing as being far much superior to accounts of eyewitnesses (Cole & Smith, 2011). For greater reliability, a combination of probes would be used, with four to six probes being recommended. Critical in DNA testing for criminal justice is the DNA database. As documented by James (2012), states enacted laws from the 1980s that required DNA samples of those convicted of sexual offences among other violent crimes to be collected. Such samples would then be analysed after which their profiles would be input into state databases. In the meantime, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Laboratory, using local, state and federal scientists, established guidelines on how DNA analysis would be conducted in the laboratories. The proposed guidelines became the basis for quality assurance standards used nationally, thus the emergence of the national DNA database. This followed the launching of the National DNA Index System, NDIS in 1998, established and overseen by the FBI. This database borrows from State DNA Index Systems (SDIS) which borrow from the database of local law enforcement agencies, Local DNA Index Systems (LDIS). The uploading and comparison of DNA profiles run on specific software. The software which is produced and distributed solely by the FBI is referred to as the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. According to Cole (2007), CODIS executes its mandate by searching three indices: arrestee, convicted offenders and forensic. The arrestee index gives DNA profiles which have been developed from those that have been arrested but yet to be convicted; convicted offender index bears the DNA profiles which have been developed from samples extracted from offenders already convicted; and forensic index has DNA profiles which have been developed from those samples which have been collected from scenes of crime. CODIS would search across these indices, seeking to establish any matches, also known as hits, thus providing law enforcement agencies with identities of suspects. Matches between DNA profiles would link crime scenes, thus helpful in the identification of serial offenders. Multiple samples from the forensic index giving matches cause law enforcement agencies drawn from diverse jurisdictions to coordinate and share useful leads. Important to note, according to Lazer (2006), is that no personal identifiers for arrestee or offender DNA profiles are held in the NDIS. As such, when CODIS gives a match, the source laboratories for the DNA profiles would be notified for verification and coordination. Thus, DNA testing operates on a myriad of integrated technologies including data mining software, integrated databases and biological characteristic readers. The functionality of CODIS is pegged on unique human genetic characteristics. The FBI is in charge of selecting the 13 core short tandem repeat, STR loci to be entered into CODIS. This measure was aimed at ensuring uniformity in the DNA databases provided to NDIS by all forensic laboratories (Steinback, 2008). These 13 STR loci are non-coding, which, according to Cole and Smith (2011), means that they cannot be linked to human attributes like skin colour or height or susceptible to diseases. Each one of the 13 loci has two alleles, thus the use of the 13 pairs of the alleles for comparison between the samples contained in the forensic index and the profiles from arrestee or offender indices. These loci have high discriminatory power which makes it almost impossible for two unrelated individuals to share all the 13 pairs of alleles. James (2012) estimates this probability at one in hundreds of billions. Averagely, two random Americans would share between two and three alleles. Thus, DNA testing provides an almost accurate way for linking suspects to crime. To further ensure effectiveness of DNA testing, mechanisms to foster accuracy of the data contained in the databases have been undertaken. As such, the FBI signs memoranda of understanding with the participating state laboratories that binds them to the Quality Assurance Standards, QAS set by the FBI (Cole & Smith, 2011). These laboratories should be accredited and audited on a yearly basis by an external or internal auditor and at least once in every two years by an external agency. The Forensic Quality Services, FQS and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, ASCLD through its Laboratory Accreditation Board, LAB are the two bodies regulating these audits. Furthermore, DNA analysts are required to undergo proficiency testing semi-annually with failures not being allowed to operate CODIS. Finally, laboratories should review all DNA profiles twice before entering them into CODIS (James, 2012). Therefore, accuracy of the information generated by CODIS from the DNA database passes for utmost accuracy. One of the key limitations of DNA testing technology in criminal justice is its proneness to misuse, thus raising ethical concerns. As observed by Machado and Silva (2012), most jurisdictions would normally retain the DNA sample that was used for the generation of the profile that is entered into CODIS. Usually, DNA samples would be retained for purposes of quality assurance, such as hit confirmation with NDIS. Additionally, future emergent technology could call for retesting of the samples. This has raised concerns, especially among stakeholders in humanities and social sciences, on the possibility of the stored DNA being misused bearing in mind the high likelihood of genetic information providing data useful beyond criminal investigation purposes. However, James (2012) observes that federal and state governments have put in place stringent penalties for such an offence, giving the example of the federal authority which currently places a maximum fine of $250,000 or one year imprisonment for the crime. Therefore, in as much as privacy is a limitation in DNA testing technology, there are protective countermeasures. Moreover, DNA testing could delay delivery of justice following a backlog of DNA evidence processing. Backlogs such as those reported by the National Institute of Justice, NIJ in 2011 result from increased crimes and increasing demand for DNA analysis, with over 25% of the laboratories reporting time around time of up to 270 days (James, 2012). Such backlogs could result in the delayed processing of DNA evidence, thus delays in prosecuting or apprehending serial or violent offenders or wrongful convictions (Steiback, 2008). Moreover, persistent backlogs could cause crime laboratories to prioritize DNA testing for violent offences over other offences considered as minor. In fact, biological evidence collection for minor offences could be banned (Machado & Silva, 2012). As a result of failure to analyse DNA samples for these crimes considered as minor, law enforcers could face challenges apprehending such offenders in time before they engage in serious crimes. Cost could be a deterrent to adoption of DNA testing technology in many states. The physical infrastructure, human resource and regulatory requirements could make the cost of running DNA testing laboratories high. However, VARSHA (2006) argues that increasing the automation of laboratory procedures could yield significant cost savings. Steinack (2008) observes efforts to cut on costs involved in DNA testing through the DNA chip technology. This involves the embedment of numerous short DNA sequences onto some tiny silicon chip. This innovation fosters more rapid and inexpensive analysis with more probes. Thus, as technology continues to advance, DNA testing would become more inexpensive. Section IV: Conclusion DNA testing has revolutionised the criminal justice system, providing an accurate approach to detecting, preventing and deterring crime. Its invention borrows from the uniqueness and specificity of the 13 pairs of alleles used in analysis of genetic materials. Even so, the vastness of the employed national database, physical infrastructure, regulatory requirements and human resource engagement could make the technology prohibitive. Therefore, adoption of portable DNA analysis devices would not only allow for analysis closer to the scene of crime but could also improve on the turnaround time and foster cost savings. Backlogs should be reduced to allow for swiftness in the retrieval of relevant data from CODIS. This could be achieved by increasing the capacity of local and state laboratories to carry out analyses and facilitating partnerships between private and public laboratories to ease the workload. Even as such measures are undertaken to make DNA testing more reliable and cost effective, it should still be appreciated that the technology has extensively transformed criminal justice administration. It is thus an effective approach which has greater future potential of totally transforming the administration of criminal justice. References Cole, G. & Smith, C. (2011). Criminal justice in America (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Cole, S. A. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 95 – 107. doi: 10.3152/030234207X190991 James, N. (2012, December 6). DNA testing in criminal justice: Background, current law, grants, and issues. CRC Report for Congress. Retrieved 15 November 2014 from http://fas.org/ Lazer, D. (2006). Statutory frameworks for regulating information flows: Drawing lessons for DNA data banks from other government data systems. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 34, 366 – 374. Machado, H. & Silva, S. (2012). Criminal genomic pragmatism: Prisoners’ representations of DNA technology and biosecurity. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, 1, 1 – 5. doi:10.1155/2012/592364 Steinback, R. (2008). The fight for post-conviction DNA testing is not yet over: An analysis of the eight remaining “holdout states” and the suggestions for strategies to bring vital relief to the wrongfully convicted. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1), 329 - 361. doi: 0091-4169/07/9801-0329 VARSHA. (2006). DNA fingerprinting in the criminal justice system: An overview. DNA and Cell Biology, 25(3), 181 – 188. Read More