DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel ‘polymerase chain reaction’ (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed not with standing contamination from oil, water, or acid.1324
A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database will be there to identify the potential suspects. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant innocent. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by an American jury of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in spite of compelling DNA evidence linking him to the scene of the crime. 74 Another case study is of rape victim Debbie Smith. Everything changed for rape victim Debbie Smith when the man who had raped her 6 years earlier was identified. When processed through Virginia's DNA databank, the DNA sample of her assailant collected years earlier had produced a match or "hit" with DNA of an inmate in a Virginia prison. As reflected by her compelling testimony before the National Institute of Justice's National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, that DNA match gave Debbie final proof that her assailant would not "come back" for her, as he had threatened. What is more important is that it allowed her to begin healing. This was taken from a web site compiled of DNA conviction success stories.8
The procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the public. The National Crime Information Centre Computer in the United States contains files relating to thirty two million Americans and receives approximately two million queries each day. The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Such as mortgage lenders and insurance companies. If we are prepared to do provide it to outside agencies, why can we not trust it to the public authorities? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear.723 Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995, an 18-month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was ‘drylabbing’ or faking results of DNA comparisons. Even a complete DNA profile cannot indicate the length of time a suspect was present at a crime scene or the date in question. The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection. The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. The provision of DNA would have to be mandatory, for otherwise those liable to commit crime would simply refuse to provide a sample. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies, he receives a service in return. In being compelled, to give a sample of DNA the innocent citizen would receive the scant benefit of being eliminated from a police investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. It should be noted that DNA identifies not only the person in question, but also approximately 4,000 different genetic conditions and predispositions to disease. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private; the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal.152 There is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is likely that more crimes will be prosecuted because of largely circumstantial evidence. Despite this, there is the possibility that not only the police, but also the jury, will be blinded by science. It seems unlikely that juries will be able to comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.
I conclude, that despite this last argument given I feel that it would be beneficial to our society to have a genetic database for use in criminal trails. DNA is just another important piece of evidence just like ballistics or any other department. I feel that a jury requires full evidence of a case to make a subjective decision. Therefore, despite some people feeling like big brother is just trying to monitor if it solves one murder or one kidnapping I feel it is worth it.
Bibliography
- WH-smith as/a2 revision guide
- AS text book
-
Www. nucleus.cshl.edu/agsa/presentation/ Physical_mapping
- www. Access2.cmi.ac.in/ICS/02/Papers/bio.pdf
- Biology CD rom
- Www.sens.el.utwente.nl/research/ imageproc/fingiden.shtml
- Genetic fingerprints- sky channel Science
- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/dna_4_2001/dna11_4_01.html