Blog Post 10- DNA Databases
Topic:
Current law in the U.S. allows DNA to be taken from sex offenders and those convicted or accused of a serious crime. The information is maintained in a national DNA database. The database has been used both to prosecute crimes and to exonerate those wrongfully convicted. With some exceptions, most notably the military, the federal government may not collect DNA from ordinary citizens. Several states, including Utah, have statutorily allowed the collection of DNA from persons arrested and subsequently charged with felonies. In Utah, DNA samples of those arrested, but never charged or later exonerated, must be destroyed. In contrast, Britain more widely collects DNA from ordinary citizens, often in “DNA dragnets” where, for example, DNA samples of all male citizens in a given community are taken to aid in the investigation of a rape. The samples are maintained in a national database.Opine on whether the creation of a national DNA database consisting of DNA from every citizen collected through a mandatory collection program would be sound public policy and explain and justify your view.
Overview:
A little over a hundred years ago a suspect could leave a pool of his own blood at the scene of a crime and all the police could do was mop it up and stick with their hunch. Those days are long gone. Now if there is even something as small as an eyelash left at a crime scene the police can find the identity of the perpetrator almost instantly thanks to the help of forensics and DNA databases. Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA for short is a chemical found in every cell of every living organism on this planet. Made up of 23 pairs of chromosomes and every single one is different due to the different ordering of 4 nitrogenous bases. Every person has their own individual sequence and by comparing DNA found on cells of a crime scene the police can find out who done it. But, there is a catch.
In order to effectively use this DNA to solve a crime there already has to be a record somewhere of your specific genetic code. Starting in 1994 the US government allowed for the collection of this DNA to be put into a database so that if the same person committed multiple crimes they would be identifiable the second time because their DNA would already be on record. "The database originally tracked only sex offenders, but has expanded to include all people convicted of a qualifying federal offense. Some states and the federal government have also begun collecting DNA samples from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted, as well as from detained immigrants" (1). These databases have been responsible for both convicting perpetrators and exonerating falsely convicted persons. However, advancements in technology and a more modern mindset have started to raise questions about the collection of DNA for storage.
Privacy Concerns:
Due to the fact that DNA is linked to one specific individual there are some concerns about how it will be used once in the data bank. Firstly, there is a concern that this DNA will be used to track individuals or their relatives. Every time you touch anything you leave a trace of your DNA on it at this could be used to track people or see who all has been in a specific place recently. While this is good for forensics during criminal investigations, it is bad if it falls into the wrong hands or the government decides that they want to follow you and know where you go. Secondly, "in order to be useful to track suspects, DNA records are linked to other computer records such as records of arrest, which can be used to refuse someone a visa or a job, or lead to them being treated differently by the police" (2). Finally, there is the fact that DNA can be analyzed to find health and genetic patterns such as if a person is more likely to develop different diseases or whether or not they are fertile. This information that people may not even know about themselves, let alone want to be known by others around them. In addition to all of these concerns there is the fact that there are already other problems with the justice system right now such as racial and religious bias. These DNA databases could create an even larger distrust between the law and the people because people could face even more prejudice based upon certain characteristics shown in their DNA.
Benefits:
On the flip side of the coin there are a ton of benefits to having DNA databases. Primarily, the hypothetical of having a database of the entire nation. That would save the police force so much work. Every case could be solved so quickly because if there was any tiny bit of DNA from the criminal at the scene of a crime they would immediately be able to link it to the DNA of the person who committed the crime. No more long drawn out searches for criminals. Trial would be so simple because they would have evidence already with just the DNA itself. Now you would probably still want to do some investigation because DNA analysis still isn't 100% and there is always the twin argument, but it is still more effective than what we currently have. In addition to being able to convict criminals quickly, we would also be able to prove people innocent just as easily. This way if your DNA was found at the crime and you didn't commit the crime you would have nothing to worry about. This database would be so effective if implemented that it could slow crime rates everywhere because it is nearly impossible to commit a crime without leaving any DNA and committing a crime in this system is essentially a one way ticket to jail for the correct suspect with little to no chance of someone getting falsely arrested.
Current Laws/Regulations:
Utah law states, "People convicted of any felony or sex crime misdemeanor must submit a DNA
sample to state officials . The state also collects DNA for those convicted of
class A misdemeanors. Sample collection applies to juveniles" (3). Additionally, a convicted criminal can apply for a post conviction DNA test, but the test has to have a chance to produce new evidence to prove innocence.
"The national DNA database system has three basic levels: first, local governments collect DNA information in their own databases. The local government can submit approved DNA profiles to their states own DNA database" (1). This system allows each state to set up their own specific rules, but in the end the national government still gets the DNA it desires.
My Opinion:
I believe that the pros of creating a massive database will the DNA of everyone in the United States vastly outweighs the cons. It could be set up that at birth you have a small DNA sample taken since your DNA doesn't change as you get older. Being able to speed up all of the police work and never have to worry about false convictions would be so beneficial to the American justice system. I believe that this would reduce crime rates nationwide and wouldn't really be that difficult to implement. You would have to figure out a way to get every current resident into the database, but this would make the system more fair anyways because currently ethnic minorities and young people are over-represented, creating resentment and anti-police feeling. Two-in-five black men have their DNA on record, as against fewer than one-in-ten whites" (4). After implementation everyone would be equal and we would be able to solve any crime with more efficiency and more effectively. The biggest concern would be to make sure that this database is heavily encrypted and only people with a certain clearance would be able to access it. It would be similar to the way that medical personal now use the HIPAA in order to keep patient information confidential. To me the idea of helping the judicial system run smoother seems extremely more important than the chance of people stealing DNA which you can already do fairly easily.
Though I do see the potential value that a mass DNA database would have for solving crime, I disagree with your conclusion. As I explained in my comment on Ivana's post, I think mass collection of DNA counts as an unreasonable search and seizure of an individual, and that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their DNA. Even if the database is encrypted and regulations are placed on its use, I feel that forcing everyone to give their personally identifiable information violates their right to anonymity. I also worry that the database would be abused, and may not function perfectly in solving crimes if, for example, DNA of two people, one innocent and one guilty was found at the scene of a crime, it may still be impossible to determine which person was guilty.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with you here, Cole. It seems to me like the benefits of a national DNA database would greatly improve the ability of police and other agencies like the FBI to do their jobs when solving crimes. I do understand that there would be significant concerns with this though, and do agree that such a national database would have to be among the most protected and encrypted in the world, among the other concerns regarding racism and prejudice. Because of that, maybe it would be better if each state or even each county individually had its own database of residents' DNA. This would decentralize the data and prevent such a massive swath from being attacked. The FBI or other national agencies could request relevant or nearby DNA samples from a local court and could temporarily store them using their own short-term database. However, this type of system would probably function a lot slower than if the FBI just had its own national database, and it would also essentially mean working backward for them. Ultimately, I think that a federal database, perhaps involving a partnership with local and state agencies, would be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely, there defenitely are some cons but the pros outweigh them heavily. It would be nice to help the police force as much as we can especially when the database is encrypted so heavily. If they set up a law kind of like HIPPA I think this would be incredible. My only concern would be how accurate the dna testing is. By this I mainly mean if I’m at one crime scene that happened, let’s say in a hotel, how are they going to know what dna sample is correct. I’m sure there are so many people who have been in that hotel and picking up other dna samples could be misleading. However knowing exactly who has been in the area of the crime can further progress the detective work. Overall I know that I wouldn’t mind too much if my DNA was on a database of everyone else’s was too.
ReplyDeleteHey! You're opinion was the opinion I penned in my comment on the other post! I agree. I do just want to say, the privacy concerns you talk about are not major concerns to me. I'd be much more worried about the use of DNA (especially collected from everyone) expanding to create a world of eugenics. Discrimination by a group or governing body based on DNA collected from everyone in a population scares me. I do believe this risk can be mitigated by the presence of law (perhaps even a constitutional amendment?) enough to warrant at least limited use of this technology for the positive impact is has on our justice system.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your conclusion that creating a database of DNA would be more helpful for investigations. Even if the owner of the DNA didn't actually commit a crime, it would give law enforcement a place to start the investigation. Although everyone has a right to privacy, it is already extremely easy to leave DNA samples in random places, such as by opening doors or hair falling down. I wouldn't say that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy to DNA when DNA is so absurdly easy to obtain. While a DNA database could be dangerous in the wrong hands, steps could be taken to avoid misuse. Finally, I don't necessarily see the problem in the mandatory collection revealing possible diseases, especially if the DNA owner was unaware of them. If mandatory DNA collection can help us improve the effectiveness of law enforcement, I do agree that it should be implemented.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a national DNA data base would have its benefits. In addition, in the near future it might be common practice to sequence everyone's DNA at birth simply to improve healthcare outcomes, like the ability to predict what ailments a person is at risk for etc. So a data base would be easy to produce. However, before such a data base is used to determine the guilt/innocence of people it would be important to determine the accuracy of results and the reliability of such tests. Also, some people can share very similar DNA, so what then? I agree a DNA data base could be helpful to law enforcement, but it should never be the only tool used by law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete" I believe that the pros of creating a massive database will the DNA of everyone in the United States vastly outweighs the cons." This is a major violation of our privacy. Do you really trust the United States Government with every person's DNA? The United States has already been caught using citizens DNA for unknown purposes without consent. Allowing the government to use citizens DNA for any purpose they feel like makes me very uncomfortable. The sad fact is that our DNA is already being collected when we are born. About 4 million newborns in the U.S. are screened for congenital disorders and the left over DNA can be stored depending on the state. It's upsetting that currently the U.S. is heading towards adopting a policy of taking baby's DNA. I would also bet the government is going to justify this by saying its for checking for hereditary disease or health related reasoning. If you want to learn more about the left over DNA being stored look at this article ( http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/01/whos-keeping-your-data-safe-dna-banks-261136.html )
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that such a database would have its uses. But I do not think that such a data base should exist, at least not one with mandatory participation by all citizens. Such a data base could be easily abused or relied upon too heavily in investigations. DNA can reveal medical information or possible medical conditions that an individual may have and want to keep private, including private from the government. Who would have access to such records, since there is never a 100% guarantee that such a data base would not be compromised, who would be held accountable?
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize there were two separate blog posts, so I apologize for the late post. I agree with the majority of your concluding remarks. Without heavy encryption and protection of the data as well as strict regulations on the use of this data, I think it will quickly become abused. However, with regulations and strict punishment for violation of the regulations, I think this could be a potential (but still dangerous) asset for the justice system.
ReplyDeleteI disagree as I mentioned in my post. Cole, you make a great point about collecting DNA at birth, what you disregard is that the United States is not only populated by citizens but also illegal immigrants which are unaccounted for in your collection of DNA. Thus this would create difficulty to include everyone within the US.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to mention the UK’s system one of the largest DNA databases in the world. In a submission to the House of Lords GeneWatch UK found that,”1.Analysis of Home Office data shows that collecting more DNA from crime scenes has made a significant difference to the number of crimes solved, but keeping DNA from increasing numbers of individuals has not. Since April 2003, about 1.5 million extra people have been added to the Database, but the chances of detecting a crime using DNA has remained roughly constant, at about 0.36%. The Home Office appears to accept that the retention of DNA from innocent people has had little impact on crime detection rates.” (https://whereismydata.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/select-comittee-report-into-privacy-genewatch/) While I see the potential benefits of collecting DNA from civilians, the UK has found that it doesn’t has a large impact as we would like.