Privacy Concerns
Most studies have shown that popular opinion holds that without a doubt national DNA databases have proved useful in criminal investigations (Wallace, 2006, pS27). The concept of a national DNA database has raised concern about privacy and human rights as seen through the scope of public safety. All of these concerns are elevated with databases include convicted, arrestee, innocent, and “rehabilitated” offenders (Suter, 2010, p339). Robin Williams of University of Duham (2006) asserts that:
“The rapid implementation and continuing expansion of forensic DNA databases around the world has been supported by claims about their effectiveness in criminal investigations and challenged by assertions of the resulting intrusiveness into individual privacy” (p545).
To determine the balance between privacy and public safety legislation must address many questions including (but not limited to): when is a sample required to be obtained and by whom, is consent required, is force ever acceptable to obtain a sample, and which samples should be retained? Dr Katina Michael has reported that some instances that constitute acceptable DNA sample collection and storage (Table 4). The United States, England and Wales contain legislation that authorizes the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for violations of certain federal criminal laws and inclusion into the national DNA database of all profiles. Primary concerns focus these legal authorizations address privacy of a person and legal search and seizures of biological samples. For many countries like the United States there is a need to enact special legislation which led to delays in the implementation of DNA databases (Goodwin, et al., 2007, p102).
In the United Sta...
... middle of paper ...
...data from law enforcement databases” for those who receive acquittals or whose convictions are overturned; there is no reference to physical DNA samples (Lwin, 2010, p21). Historically, legislative proposals purpose indefinite retention of evidentiary DNA samples, however the US, unlike England and Wales, does not refer to retention periods for genetic information post sentence completion. Individuals may find concern for personal genetic identifiers if the physical sample is retained post sentence completion, acquittal or if found innocent (Congressional Research Service, 2010, pp13-14; Beiber, 2002, p14). Studies assert the method of sample collection, accreditation of agencies collecting samples, legislative limits on retention periods for biometric information and a focus on balancing privacy and crime deterrence will structure a successful DNA database model.
As we learned this week, DNA databases are used by various governmental agencies for several different purposes. We all have seen new magazine shows such as, 20/20 or Dateline, that show the collection of DNA samples from suspects in a case that is compared to those collected at the scene of the crime. But what happens when the sample is an incomplete match, compromised, or contaminated? The answer is the wrongful conviction of innocent citizens. The case that I have decided to highlight, is the wrongful conviction of Herman Atkins. In 1986, Atkins was convicted of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of oral copulation, and robbery in the state of California. It was alleged that Herman entered a shoe store, and raped, beat, and robbed a
“DNA Testing and the Death Penalty.” ACLU: American Civil Liberties Union. 3 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
DNA evidence should not be colvcslected from suspects as a matter of routine. To do so will cause unnecessary privacy intrusion; in the vast majority of criminal cases DNA evidence will contribute nothing to the investigation. Thus, it would not be appropriate for Parliament to give blanket authority to collect DNA samples from all persons suspected of indictable offences. DNA should also not be collected from a suspect if investigators have no DNA evidence with which to compare the suspect's sample. Nor would a DNA sample be necessary if the suspect admitted guilt.
Keiper L. More states use familial DNA as powerful forensic search tool. Reuters [Internet]. 2011 [cited May 16 2012]; N. page. Available from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-crime-dna-familial-idUSTRE72T2QS20110330.
Rentschler, Carrie A. & Co. “Victims' Rights and the Struggle Over Crime in the Media.” Canadian Journal of Communication 32.2 (2007): 219-39. Stevens, Aaron P. “Arresting Crime: Expanding the Scope of DNA Databases in America.” Texas Law Review 79.4 (2001): 921-60.
The COmbined DNA Index System (CODIS) is a computer software program that is operated and maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, which allows law enforcement agencies to search and exchange DNA information. It was originally created in 1990 as a pilot software project that would allow 14 State and Local laboratories to communicate and share biological evidence data to aid in criminal case closure. Following the DNA Identification Act of 1994, the FBI established the National DNA Index System (NDIS) that currently serves over 25 countries in their own DNA Data banking initiatives (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). NDIS, populated by many State DNA Index Systems (SDIS) and local DNA Index Systems (LDIS) provide a mechanism for cross checking previously disparate legal and judicial entities for serial criminal offenders (USA.gov, 2010).
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an acclaimed extraordinary discovery that has contributed great benefits in several fields throughout the world. DNA evidence is accounted for in the majority of cases presented in the criminal justice system. It is known as our very own unique genetic fingerprint; “a chromosome molecule which carries genetic coding unique to each person with the only exception of identical twins (that is why it is also called 'DNA fingerprinting ')” (Duhaime, n.d.). DNA is found in the nuclei of cells of nearly all living things.
H.M. Wallace, A.R. Jacksona, J. Gruberb, A.D. Thibedeaub. Forensic DNA databases–Ethical and legal standards, ScienceDirec, 2014.
Singer, Julie A. "The Impact Of Dna And Other Technology On The Criminal Justice System: Improvements And Complications."Albany Law Journal Of Science & Technology 17.(2007): 87. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys discovered a use for creating DNA profiles to solve paternity disputes, but is a process which has expanded its use to forensic scientists in solving crimes. In the process of “DNA fingerprinting,” of which a DNA profile is created, DNA evidence from a crime scene can be used to match to criminals already in the database. A DNA profile focuses on thirteen markers, or locations, on the genome that have high variability between people. Consequently, the likelihood of two people having the same results for those thirteen markers is very small (Matheson, 2016). In fact, the chances can be as high as 1 in 1 billion (“What is a Cold Case,” 2008). While this type of testing helps to match DNA to a profile already in the database, it cannot be used for people who previously had a clean record before committing the
the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. National Institute of Justice, 10, 15. Retrieved from, https://www.ncjrs.gov/
The typical patterns of genetic profiles are produced by electrophoresis of treated samples of DNA. This patterns may be called fingerprints. In criminal investigations, there are tested about 10 sites of the DNA. If the banding patterns produced by the tested DNA samples of a suspect in a crime, and the samples taken from the crime scene are the same, it is enough evidence for convicting a suspect and taking him to jail. The 99% of human DNA is exactly the same for all the people, even though, a single droplet of blood, or an eyelash collected in a crime scene, contains all the genetic information needed of every single person in the world, to convict a criminal. DNA profiling has have a huge impact in many things, from the...
2) It is getting ever easier to record anything, or everything, that you see. This opens fascinating possibilities-and alarming ones.”
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
Law enforcement officers come across a plethora of cases each year. Every case which is investigated and DNA collected should not be sent to a lab. Every crime that is investigated meets different requirement and elements. For instance, when investigating a burglary and blood is found at the scene, DNA is collected and attached to the case file. If the burglary had no other crime involved such as rape or a homicide, just stolen goods, why would the agency spend the resources to just to catch a petty theft at night. Crimes are committed each day and there are priorities for crimes, most server crimes that involve life and or sexual related crimes should be investigated and all DNA sent to the lab to be analyzed and compared to I the database. In a perfect world we would be able to catch all criminals with DNA because in away every criminal leaves DNA at the scene, whether it be hair, saliva, sweat, blood, mucus, and finger prints, Locard's exchange principle.