The Pros and Cons of DNA Testing in Law Enforcement - Term Paper Example

DNA Testing Allen D. Green Anna Hopson English 122 October 5, 2009 The world around us is changing rapidly due to new technologies. Especially in the field of criminal justice we can see how new techniques that once could only have been dreamt up by science fiction writers are now a reality. The techniques, especially DNA testing, are now an integral part of efforts to prevent and solve crimes—largely because of their success rate and their level of convenience. This is very important because our police forces and forensic laboratories play a vital front line role in investigating and protecting us from criminals. In many respects, law enforcement professionals can only protect the public in so far as they can properly and effectively make use of new technologies. However, because these advances are still so new, it is not always possible to understand their full implications. As someone who is studying criminology and forensics, DNA testing will have a huge impact on the direction of my future career. But whether DNA testing is all good is a subject of intense debate—a debate that my generation will have to answer more fully. This paper will argue that although DNA testing is extremely useful to law enforcement it has potential pitfalls too. When looking at different criminological theories, anyone who intends to make a future in this profession will have to come to terms with pros and cons of DNA testing. The answers are not always so straightforward. An over reliance on DNA, although tempting, is certainly unappealing from the Due Process Model perspective. This perspective holds that everyone needs a long, full trial with lots of contextual issues entered in as evidence. However, people who prefer the Crime Control Model of criminal justice—which is much stricter—view DNA testing as a godsend as it frequently puts the bad guys away. This is the battleground of debate upon which this issue is discussed. DNA evidence is considered by some to be a silver bullet, capable of conclusively proving guilt. Indeed, DNA evidence may create an insurmountable burden for an innocent defendant. It is documented that there is a high level of error in laboratories, and it is possible for DNA samples to be switched. An accident like this, combined with circumstantial evidence would almost certainly result in a guilty verdict. Likewise, sophisticated criminals have been known to plant false DNA evidence at the crime scene in order to shift attention away from themselves and away from others. A case of this happening involves Dr. John Schneeberger, who implanted into his armpit a Penrose drain and provided someone else’s DNA when asked by the technicians, thereby avoiding being convicted of the crime of rape (with which he was originally charged). Increasing criminal sophistication will have a serious impact on forensics and those who wish to make a career or future in criminology. It will be a difficult challenge. Criminology used to be about sleuthing and psychology—in the future it will be much more laboratory based, and successful practitioners will have to have a wide-range of scientific knowledge if they hope to best criminals at their own game. The inevitable extension of DNA testing will be the proactive collection of DNA in order to prevent crime. DNA profiling starts with taking an individuals DNA. The best method of collecting a sample is through a buccal swab. Sometimes this requires a court order and police can’t get it. In these cases, other methods can be used, including taking samples of blood, saliva, semen, or other fluid or tissue from personal items (for example, a toothbrush, a razor, etc) or stored samples. Sometimes, samples taken from blood relatives may be used to catch bad guys. So far these methods have proven to be very successful. In the United States, the FBI reports a drop of more than 1 per cent in property crime due to DNA testing (Gautam). There is a lot of controversy about this issue and whether or not it is appropriate to collect peoples’ DNA samples without a warrant or without telling them that you are doing it (Jeffries). This is something that future practitioners will have to wrestle with. Sometimes police forces collect samples without the suspects knowledge, and use it as evidence. In the United States, it has been accepted and courts often claim that there was no expectation of privacy when police take someone’s biological data. There are lawyers who believe the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage, so why should it prohibit collecting a tissue with someone’s DNA on it if they left it behind? Critics of this idea say this analogy ignores that "most people have no idea that they risk surrendering their genetic identity to the police by, for instance, failing to destroy a used coffee cup. Moreover, even if they do realize it, there is no way to avoid abandoning one’s DNA in public" (Harmon). The UK has a different view of things: the Human Tissue Act of 2004 prohibits private individuals from secretly collecting biological samples for DNA analysis, but excludes medical and criminal investigations from the offence. So it is clear that different countries have different ways of looking at this complicated and controversial issue. Generally, this is a very useful technology, but it must be used carefully and scrutinized, not just done automatically. Once testing and profiling have been accepted the next challenge will be DNA databases. Once again, this controversy is at present unresolved. It will begin to become resolved as the next generation of forensics specialist come into their own. DNA databases are collections of government database that can be used by law enforcement agencies to find suspects. The world’s first such database was established by the United Kingdom in April 1995. In the US, the FBI has organized the CODIS database. The British have one of the most advanced and rigorously used databases. Anyone arrested on suspicion of a crime must submit a DNA sample, which is then permanently saved in the database. Even if you didn’t commit the crime or were acquitted, the government will keep your DNA sample. Other countries fall on different parts of this spectrum, more lenient or less lenient. Portugal is somewhat extreme as they have plans to introduce a DNA database for its entire population! (Boivida ) The arguments on both sides can be powerful. In December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, said “‘blanket and indiscriminate’ lifetime retention of DNA samples from people suspected but not convicted of offences ‘failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests’” (CBC News). Civil liberties groups in the UK were very happy with this news. They believe that a person’s right to privacy is violated when a government essentially confiscates their biological data. To them, it is not worth it that more criminals might be caught using this method—the cost in personal privacy and dignity is just too high. But there are powerful proponents of the idea too. Last year a high profile British judge set off a lot of controversy when he said everyone in the UK should be forced to provide a DNA sample to the government for law enforcement purposes. In an interview with the BBC on Wednesday, Lord Justice Stephen Sedley said the current database of nearly four million samples — currently the worlds largest — is insufficient, and that ethnic minorities are disproportionately included. "We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you havent, it isnt. … Thats broadly the picture," Sedley said. "It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free" (CBC News). And now with news that DNA testing may be capable of revealing a great deal more about a person—such as their hair and eye colour—this argument seems stronger than before (Garrett). The reason why the debate is so emotional is that both sides have good arguments that show the place where security and freedom have to intersect. These arguments happen again and again each time a new technology comes along. Balance is key. It is not a good idea to expand these databases endlessly, but they certainly have a very important role to play. Another important new related breakthrough that may be used more and more in the future and which is proving quite controversial is biometrics. There are effectively two type of biometrics: physiological—e.g. fingerprints, iris scans—and behavioural—e.g. voice or signature. Fingerprint detection of course has been around for a long time, but these days fingerprints can be reproduced and digitally stored. On the one hand this makes it a lot easier to solve crimes and find out information quickly—and so it makes Crime Control people happy. However, the process is now potentially more open to abuse than ever before. One of the biggest concerns is that once a biometric source has been compromised, it is compromised for life. A person can’t just change their fingerprints. It might be possible for criminals to steal someone’s biometrical identity and plant it at the scene of a crime. Like DNA, this data is considered by laypeople (for example jurors) to be almost foolproof and if provided as evidence in court would create a high presumption of guilt. That would be a big problem. It would also be problem for those who want identity cards to contain a piece of biometric data—this too could be fraudulently put together. Many of these technologies create an illusion of perfection, which is not true in reality. Fingerprints are not the only aspect of biometrics that have been significant to law enforcement. It can also be used to analyze and recognize facial features in order to find criminals. Faces seen on CCTV cameras can be cross-referenced with faces in databases. This can certainly be used to find bad guys, but it might be possible to have plastic surgery to avoid being detected. This is a new technology that may one day allow the government to keep tabs on all of us, say Due Process people critically. Indeed, it might be worth their while to consider the negligence suits they may be able to bring against police when incompetence is revealed through DNA exoneration (Collins, 2). Generally speaking, I think this is a very useful technology which we should use more of. Balance is important, but we should definitely pursue the idea and make more use of it. Part of its increased use will be increased dialogue, and that is a good thing, but just to stop it right now would be ridiculous. The United States, rocked by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, has been one of the world leaders in implementing this sort of technology both to protect its citizens and also to hunt down criminals. Beginning in 2005, American passports with facial (image-based) biometric data began to be produced. Again, Due Process people were critical of the technologys negative side: its threat to civil liberties, privacy, and the risk of identity theft. They were concerned that the information can be stolen and used to identify peoples citizenship remotely for criminal intentions. At any rate, the biometric passports have been delayed as the technology has not yet been perfected. Some of the problems include compatibility of reading devices, information formatting, and nature of content (for example, the United States wants to use only image data, whereas the EU wants to use fingerprint and image data). The world is changing every day. With new technology our lives often become more convenient, but also Pandora’s boxes of arguments and controversies occur as we try to rebalance our lives after they are altered by new inventions. So it is with law enforcement and technologies like DNA profiling, DNA databases, and biometrics. All of these things are in their infancy and all are subject to emotional and highly charged debate. Do they make it easier to capture criminals or are they slowly eroding our lives? Everyone has different opinions on such questions. In a future career in this field, I would be forced to make very important decisions on these subjects. What is important to remember is that no matter what side you agree with, society as a whole must come to a balance and we must constantly reexamine the foundations upon which our democracies were built: both security AND freedom. Works consulted Berger, B., Chimera, J., & Blackledge, J.. (2008). LODIS, a new investigative tool: DNA is not just court evidence anymore. The Police Chief, 75(4), 150-62. Boivida, Maria. (2006, April 8). Portugal plans a forensic DNA database. Newropeans Magazine. http://www.newropeans-magazine.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2059&Itemid=121 CBC News Online. (2007, September 5) Put all British citizens, visitors in DNA database: judge. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/05/dna-britain.html CBC News online. (2008, December 5). Human rights court says DNA database violates rights. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/05/dna-database.html Cole, Simon A.  (2007). Double helix jeopardy. IEEE Spectrum, 44(8), 44-49.  Collins, J. (2008). DNA exoneration cases may breed "failure to train" claims. The Police Chief, 75(10), 12-18.  Garrett, R. (2009). New DNA testing technique pinpoints hair, eye and skin color. Law Enforcement Technology, 36(7), 51-54, 56-57. Garrett, B., & Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful conviction. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1-16. Gautam, Naik. (2008, June 19). Currents: DNA evidence gains acceptance as a key tool in robbery cases. Wall Street Journal  (Eastern Edition),  p. A.11.  Gibson, J.. (2009, July). Truth machine: the contentious history of DNA fingerprinting.  Choice, 46(11), 2154.  Harmon, Amy. (2008, April 3). Lawyers fight DNA samples gained on the sly. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/science/03dna.html?_r=1 Jeffries, Stuart. (2006, October 28).Suspect nation. Guardian (UK). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/oct/28/comment.ukcrime Kanable, R.. (2008, August). Reducing the DNA backlog. Law Enforcement Technology, 35(8), 10,12,14,16-18,20. Prime, R., & Newman, J.. (2007, November). The impact of DNA on policing: past, present, and future. The Police Chief, 74(11), 30. Wethal, T.. (2009, July). Flawed forensics? Law Enforcement Technology, 36(7), 28,30-34.  Read More