The National DNA Database - Is It Worth the Risk?
In the past decade, genetic testing has become increasingly popular. Private companies, such as 23andMe have made genetic testing more accessible to the public, and allowed people to trace relatives and construct family trees and detect their susceptibility to disease. The improvement in DNA analysis technology and forensic DNA databases have also helped police to convict criminals charged with rape or homicide. However, it is not a good idea to have national DNA databases which would include all individuals - not just those who have been arrested or convicted for federal offenses or misdemeanors.
DNA provides information about an individual’s gender, ethnic appearance, and genetic relationships.
…show more content…
Forensic DNA databases contain DNA profiles of individuals who were involved in crimes, and this information can be shared used by international police forces. (“Is It Ethical”) In the United States, the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act allowed security personnel to use a method known as Biosurveillance, tracking individuals by traces of DNA, to combat terrorism. However, national DNA databases contain millions of DNA profiles which increases the databases’ vulnerability to hacking. If these a national DNA database is hacked, terrorists and organized crime groups can use DNA profiles to hunt individuals and their relatives. Children, who have been separated from their parents for safety, could be tracked down by their parent using Biosurveillance. Additionally, individuals in witness protection programs will no longer be protected. These individuals can alter their identity, but they can still be traced by their …show more content…
The UK had one of the first national databases, but it did not increase the likelihood of prosecution, and it lowered the public’s trust and confidence in the police. From 2005-2006, only 0.37% of all recorded crimes were resolved using DNA detection (Levitt). Also, individuals do not need to have a DNA profile in a national DNA database to be exonerated from a crime. In the United States, The Innocence Project exonerated many innocent convicts, including some on death row, by taking their DNA sample to compare directly to the DNA sample found at the crime scene. Additionally, large numbers of DNA samples increases the likelihood of errors in the lab procedures or analysis. DNA profiles do not consist of a person’s entire DNA sequence. Instead, scientists use short tandem repeats (STRs), a sequence of 2-6 base pairs that repeats in the genome. Short tandem repeats are useful because they can be replicated using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. Even though only a small part of the person’s DNA is included in the profile, it is unlikely to match another person’s profile. In the United Kingdom, ten STRs from different places in the genetic sequence are used to create a genetic profile, and the match probability is one-in-a-billion; however, a match is more likely to occur among relatives. It is difficult to
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.
accept DNA profiles from. As estimated by the FBI, the chances of two DNA samples
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
DNA testing has been the center of attention in many criminal justice cases. The United States corrections centers have utilized the DNA testing process. Seventeen death row inmates have been exonerated by the use of these tests. Earl Washington was convicted of rape and murder in 1984. Although he confessed to the rape, he was also diagnosed as being mentally retarded. In October of 2000 Mr., Washington was given a DNA test and was excluded as the rapist and murderer. The Virginia Governor pardoned Mr. Washington after he had served 16 years in prison with 14 of them being on death row (ACLU, 2011). DNA testing has become the rule rather than the exception; but what happens with the DNA after a person has been acquitted, dismissed, or exonerated. Where does DNA go to die or does it? Is the DNA destroyed, or is it retained in miscellaneous databanks for further retrieval and use? In 2010, the United States Congress began a campaign designed to encourage the states to require DNA to be taken from suspects whether they had been charged with a crime or not. In the case of S. and Marper v the United Kingdom found that the retention of the applicants' fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is creating a policy in the United States that demand DNA from suspects helps in finding subsequent criminals or is it just leading to a track and trace policy?
The National DNA Index (NDIS) contains over 8,483,906 offender profiles and 324,318 forensic profiles as of June 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2010). It has been suggested by Froomkin, a Senior Washington Correspondent, that the FBI is “shifting its resources from forensics to feeding the database” (Froomkin, 2010). This dramatic shift curtails some of the benefits of the CODIS application to the criminal justice system, as the backlogs of DNA samples increase and the statutes of limitations grow nearer and nearer on unsolved crimes.
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:
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.
Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Butler, 2011). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Using DNA to Solve Crimes, 2014).
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
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.
For example, if a person was given a life sentence, they would be able to be released, if found innocent. If they were given the death penalty, although it takes years, odds are they will be dead before they could be found innocent. The Innocence Project was established in order to vindicate individuals who were wrongfully convicted due to DNA calamity or misidentification with witnesses. Since the Innocent project has been established, an uncountable number of individuals have received freedom for crimes they were wrongfully accused of committing. For most individuals who received a life sentence, and not the death penalty, they were granted a release. According to the Innocence Project out of 300 people exonerated, 25% were convicted of murder, and 18 had death sentences. The innocence project also states, “We have also worked on cases of people who were executed before DNA testing could be conducted to corroborate guilt or prove innocence, and we are aware of several non-DNA cases where evidence of innocence surfaced after people were executed”(Innocenceproject.org/aboutpage). Disparate from the individuals facing a life sentence, those that received a death sentence are less likely to survive to prove their
"The Innocence Projectan." The Innocence Project - About Us: FAQs:How Many People Have Been Exonerated through DNA Testing? Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Genetic testing, also known as screening, is a rapidly advancing new scientific field that can potentially revolutionize not only the world of medicine, but many aspects of our lives. Genetic screening is the sequencing of human DNA in order to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. As genetic screening becomes more advanced and easily accessible, it presents society with difficult questions that must be asked about the boundaries of science and to what degree we are allowed to tamper with the human genome. To better understand the potential impact of genetic screening on our society, we must examine the potential benefits in comparison to the possible negative impact it may cause. With this knowledge in hand, we can examine what the future holds for this field of study and the best possible direction to take.
Chief: Earlier you mentioned that it would be beneficial in the workplace. However it can also be disadvantageous. People worry that corporations will use this knowledge to discriminate against their workers. They may worry that they will consider these results of genetic tests when they are applying.