Centrales Eléctricas o Centros de Carga Individuales,

DNA evidence is playing an increasing role in criminal cases—both in convicting the guilty and clearing the innocent. The federal gov- ernment and the states are building interlinked computerized databases of DNA samples. Initially these samples were taken from people convicted of sex crimes and a few other violent offenses, but recently the suggestion has been made to gather the DNA of all convicted criminals. Some officials have recommended expanding the database to include all individuals arrested, while others want the database to include DNA from everyone. Many people view extending the database beyond convicted criminals as an invasion of privacy and a viola- tion of civil liberties.

PROS

DNA detection has considerable advantages over con- ventional fingerprinting. Fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or can be avoided by using gloves. Comparison of even a clear print from a crime scene with a print in the national database requires sig- nificant scientific expertise. Scientists can build an accu- rate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data, and they can construct it even if it has been con- taminated by oil, water, or acid at the crime scene. The accused should appreciate a “fingerprinting” technique that is both objective and accurate.

The use of a DNA fingerprint is not an affront to civil liberties. The procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for taking a blood sample. The police already possess a vast volume of information; the National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to 32 million Americans. A forensic DNA database should be seen in the context of the personal information that other agencies hold. Insurance companies commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Mortgage lenders usually demand a full credit report on applicants. Many employers subject their employees to random drug testing. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the police? Law enforcement officials will use the DNA sample only in the detection of a crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear. The creation of a DNA database would not require a disproportionate investment of time or public resources. The requisite computer and laboratory technology is already available. The United States has developed the

CONS

Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Envi- ronmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sun- light, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature con- trolled conditions. Criminals may contaminate samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in analyzing samples. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes exam- ined. The smaller the number, the greater the possibil- ity of error. 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 creation of a database cannot be a panacea for crime detection.

DNA fingerprinting would have to be mandatory, oth- erwise those liable to commit crime would simply refuse to provide a sample. Individuals consent to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies. When citizens release information to outside agencies they receive 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 investiga- tion. Moreover, the storage by insurance companies of genetic information remains highly controversial because of the potential abuse of that information. Finally, cre- ation of the database would change the attitude of gov- ernment toward its citizens. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal.

The initial and continuing expense of a DNA database would be a gross misapplication of finite public resources. Public confidence in the criminal justice system will nei- ther be improved by requiring individuals to give time

Combined DNA Index System. The expense of sam- pling the entire population of most countries would be substantial and is unlikely to be offset by any subsequent saving in police resources, but this is part of the price for justice. Popular support for “law and order” suggests that the public puts a very high premium on protection from crime.

Persons who create violent crimes are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. However, the National Com- mission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that 30% of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator. DNA detection can identify the guilty even when the police have no obvious suspects.

A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigations. The database would identify potential suspects, each of whom could then be inves- tigated by more conventional means. Criminal trials frequently feature experts presenting scientific evidence. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. If the genetic data and associated evidence is not conclusive or is not presented with sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty. O. J. Simpson was acquit- ted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in spite of compelling DNA evidence linking him to the scene of the crime.

The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indi- cates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the initial suspect in 25% of sexual assault cases. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice.

and tissue to the police nor by the creation of a bureau- cracy dedicated to administering the database. The funds would be better spent on recruiting more police officers and deploying them on foot patrol.

The most serious violent crimes, notably rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects are obvious, DNA detec- tion is superfluous. Moreover, it is harmful to suggest that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry. Unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue.

There is a serious risk that officials will use genetic evi- dence to the exclusion of material that might prove the suspect innocent. Moreover, 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 com- prehend or, more importantly, to question the genetic information from the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has cleared many wrongly convicted individuals but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.

We do not need a database to acquit or exclude non- offenders. When the police have identified a suspect they ought to create a DNA profile and compare it to the crime scene data. Likewise, a DNA sample should be taken if there is concern that an individual was wrongly convicted of a crime.

PROS CONS

Sample Motions:

This House would have a criminal DNA database. This House would give away its DNA.

This House would catch a crook by his genes.

Web Links:

• From Crime Scene to Courtroom. <http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/judicature/article9.html> A 1999 essay stressing the ben- efits of and problems involved in the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) by the executive director of the National Com- mission on the Future of DNA Evidence.

• How Stuff Works. <http://www.howstuffworks.com/dna-evidence.htm> Detailed explanation of DNA fingerprinting for the lay- person.

|The Debatabase Book

DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE