DNA analysis becomes more valuable as the size of offender databases increases. As more offender DNA profiles are entered into state databases and CODIS, the probability of a match or "hit" increases exponentially. States and the federal government should provide the resources necessary to enter the DNA of all offenders covered by law into DNA databases as quickly as possible.
Criminal justice professionals need to be educated about the value and limitations of DNA analysis. Police, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges and juries all require some degree of training in order to do their jobs properly. Training in evidence identification, collection preservation, and its presentation in court is essential for the effective use of DNA.
The increased reliance on DNA in criminal justice has placed great demands on crime labs throughout the country. Lab capacity (both public and private) will need to grow to meet that demand. Labs must operate according to national quality assurance standards and accreditation models. States, the federal government and public and private institutions of higher education need to work cooperatively to develop the education and training programs needed to meet the acute demand for qualified scientists and technicians.
One example of DNA being the basis for conviction is the Lee v. State of Nevada decision. The convicted rapist had hoped for more than 10 years that the DNA analysis would set him free. After careful analysis the court found that Albert Lee was with out a shadow of a doubt the perpetrator in the murder of
-2-
young woman. There are other cases that also have exonerated convicted criminals that have been imprisoned wrongly. In Broward County Florida there is an example that shows that DNA testing can exonerate a convicted murderer of four people. In the case Townsend v. Florida, Jerry Frank Townsend was convicted of the murder of four people. Townsend served 22 years in prison and was exonerated on in June of 2001.
As DNA analysis becomes a mainstay of criminal justice operations, legal issues and privacy concerns continue to emerge. Questions about which offenders to test (at what stage in the criminal justice process), how long samples are retained and under what conditions, and the extent of post-conviction access to DNA analysis by convicted offenders, continue to be debated. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, established by the Attorney General in 1998, has made significant contributions in addressing these issues. As that Commission concludes its work, the Attorney General should convene a similar body to serve as a national forum for the discussion of emerging issues concerning DNA in criminal justice. Similarly, the National Institute of Justice should continue and expand its research and development programs aimed at improving the use of DNA in criminal justice. DNA is an extremely powerful law enforcement tool. It has convicted many persons accused of crimes. DNA may also be the most valuable tool we have for proving innocence as well and it has even caused the nation to rethink the death penalty.
Obtaining a nationwide database of DNA "fingerprints" could revolutionize law enforcement identification. Every State now requires DNA samples from some convicted felons and at least 5 states compel DNA samples from all felons. Law enforcement authorities have embarked on federal and state programs to compel DNA samples from all arrestees as well. The Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) is already underway and is designed to be a fully integrated local, state, and national law enforcement system of DNA records. And some are arguing for a national database that would even obtain and record the DNA of all newborns, immigrants and visitors to the United States.
However, unlike fingerprints, DNA contains much more information than mere identification by comparison. With the imminent completion of the Human Genome Project, we will have the beginning of a map that can be used to find out virtually every physical fact about a person from a DNA sample. The mass collection of such samples and the potential misuse of the information they contain is a real threat to personal privacy. Should DNA information left at a crime scene be used to "profile" a group of suspects for police arrest or interrogation? On an almost bizarre level, some researchers think links to predispositions for certain types of antisocial or criminal activity may be found in the genes. The nature v. nurture debate is far from over, according to some.
-3-
What if there is a common gene that is found among pedophiles, for example? Is that evidence obtainable by the police? Is it admissible?
These issues are being considered at several levels and some of them have reached the court system already. After reading a report on the number of exonerations from DNA testing, the Attorney General established the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, which has already made a number of important findings and recommendations. The Commission research is already providing valuable information for the courts as well. Judges need to prepare ourselves to understand and deal with these issues in the criminal justice system. The collection of information here is a beginning point for those who have not begun that process as well as and update for those who have already faced such issues.
