Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- About the contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introducing Genetic Suspects
- Section 1 Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing
- Section 2 National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues
- 7 DNA databases and the forensic imaginary
- 8 Partners in crime: the use of forensic DNA technologies in Austria
- 9 Inquisitorial forensic DNA profiling in the Netherlands and the expansion of the forensic genetic body
- 10 DNA the Nor-way: black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the key
- 11 Portuguese forensic DNA database: political enthusiasm, public trust and probable issues in future practice
- 12 On trial! Governing forensic DNA technologies in the USA
- 13 Biosurveillance and biocivic concerns, from ‘truth’ to ‘trust’: the Australian forensic DNA terrain
- 14 Finding the balance: forensic DNA profiling in New Zealand
- 15 Forensic DNA profiling and databasing: the Philippine experience
- Section 3 Conclusions
- Index
- References
12 - On trial! Governing forensic DNA technologies in the USA
from Section 2 - National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- About the contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introducing Genetic Suspects
- Section 1 Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing
- Section 2 National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues
- 7 DNA databases and the forensic imaginary
- 8 Partners in crime: the use of forensic DNA technologies in Austria
- 9 Inquisitorial forensic DNA profiling in the Netherlands and the expansion of the forensic genetic body
- 10 DNA the Nor-way: black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the key
- 11 Portuguese forensic DNA database: political enthusiasm, public trust and probable issues in future practice
- 12 On trial! Governing forensic DNA technologies in the USA
- 13 Biosurveillance and biocivic concerns, from ‘truth’ to ‘trust’: the Australian forensic DNA terrain
- 14 Finding the balance: forensic DNA profiling in New Zealand
- 15 Forensic DNA profiling and databasing: the Philippine experience
- Section 3 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
When DNA profiling was first introduced into the American legal system in late 1987, judges and prosecutors heralded it as the ‘greatest advance in crime fighting technology since fingerprints’ (People of New York v. George Wesley and Cameron Bailey 1988). Press accounts proclaimed that the technique would ‘revolutionize’ law enforcement (Lewis 1988; Marx 1988; Moss 1988). In many ways, it has. In the past two decades, DNA evidence has been used in the USA to solve countless violent crimes that might otherwise have been relegated to cold case files, putting thousands upon thousands of rapists and murderers behind bars and inducing guilty pleas from thousands more. Arrest warrants have been issued based solely on crime scene DNA profiles (Bieber 2002; Denver District Attorney 2008). Millions of profiles are now stored in a national DNA database, ready to be used in the aid of criminal investigations around the country. DNA evidence has even been used to free more than 250 ‘wrongfully convicted’ individuals from prison – until recently a uniquely American phenomenon that signals both the problems inherent in the country's criminal justice system and its faith in the power of science to bring the truth to light (Innocence Project 2010).
Yet, the introduction and development of DNA profiling in the USA has been far from perfect. Although closure, if not complete resolution, has been achieved in the majority of debates over molecular biology and population genetics that once affected the legal admissibility of the technique (Thompson 1993; Derksen 2003; Aronson 2007; Lynch et al. 2008), several issues remain inadequately addressed by the scientific and legal communities.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetic SuspectsGlobal Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing, pp. 240 - 261Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(2006). The ‘starch wars’ and the early history of DNA profiling. Forensic Science Review, 18, 59–72.Google Scholar
(2007). Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Creating the network and the actors: the FBI's role in the development of DNA profiling. Biosocieties, 3, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2007). Unlocking America: Where and How to Reduce America's Prison Population. Washington, DC: The JFA Institute.Google Scholar
(2005). Survey of State DNA Database Statues. Boston, MA: American Society for Law, Medicine, and Ethicswww.aslme.org/dna_04/grid/guide.pdf (accessed 19 December 2008).Google Scholar
and (1994). New York's DNA Data Bank and Commission on Forensic Science. New York: Mathew Bender.Google Scholar
(2002). Meeting the statute or beating it: using ‘John Doe’ indictments based on DNA to meet the statute of limitations. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150, 1079–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). Finding criminals through DNA of their relatives. Science, 312, 1315–1316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
(1987). Position on DNA Typing of Forensic Samples. Personal collection of William C. Thompson, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
and (1991). The utility of DNA typing in forensic work. Science, 254, 1735–1739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Executive Law Article 49-B. NY CLES Exec 995 [1994: ch. 737], 995-e.
(2008). John Doe DNA Case Filings/Warrants. www.denverda.org/DNA/John_Doe_DNA_Warrants.htm (accessed 8 January 2009).
(2003). Agency and structure in the history of DNA profiling: The stabilization and standardization of a new technology. PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego.
(2004). Selective arrests, an ever-expanding DNA forensic database, and the specter of an early -twenty-first-century equivalent of phrenology. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 315–334.Google Scholar
(2008). DNA dragnets and race: larger social context, history and future. GeneWatch, 21, 3–5.Google Scholar
(2010). CODIS–NDIS Statistics. Washington, DC: Department of Justicewww.fbi.gov/hq/lab/codis/clickmap.htm (accessed 16 April 2010).Google Scholar
(2008). DNA Forensics and the Law: Issue Brief. Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Centerwww.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/DNA,%20Forensics,%20and%20the%20Law%20Issue%20Brief.pdf (accessed 14 October 2008).Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006). Family ties: the use of DNA offender databases to catch offenders' kin. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 248–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1989). FBI program for the forensic application of DNA technology. In DNA Technology and Forensic Science, eds. , and . Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
(2010). Website. www.innocenceproject.org/ (accessed 16 April 2010).
(2006). Behavioral genetics research and criminal DNA databases. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69, 259–299.Google Scholar
and (2004). DNA databases for law enforcement: the coverage question and the case for a population-wide database. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 247–284.Google Scholar
(1997). Why DNA likelihood ratios should account for error, Jurimetrics Journal, 37, 425–437.Google Scholar
(1991). Critic of ‘genetic fingerprinting’ tests tells of pressure to withdraw paper. New York Times, 20 December, A20.Google Scholar
(2005). From Asilomar to industrial biotechnology: risks, reductionism and regulation. Science as Culture, 14, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , et al. (2008). Drug arrests and DNA: building Jim Crow's database. GeneWatch, 21, 9–11.Google Scholar
and (1991). Population genetics in forensic DNA typing. Science, 254, 1745–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1998). The discursive production of uncertainty: the OJ Simpson ‘dream team’ and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science, 28, 829–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , et al. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1988). DNA fingerprinting takes the witness stand. Science, 240, 1616–1618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2008). Short Tandem Repeat DNA Internet Database. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technologywww.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/ (accessed: 13 October 2008).Google Scholar
(1996). The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
and (1990). Defendants Post-Hearing Memorandum on the Inadmissibility of Forensic DNA Evidence. United States v. Yee, 3. Personal collection of Richard C. Lewontin.
(2006). About face: forensic genetic testing for race and visible traits. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). How Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld tripped up the DNA experts. American Lawyer, December, 50–56.Google Scholar
and (2001). Developing Criteria for Model External DNA Proficiency Testing: Final Report. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
(2003). Conversations with History Series at UC-Berkeley: DNA and the Criminal Justice System [Interview with Harry Kriesler.] Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Studieshttp://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Scheck/scheck-con3.html (accessed 17 August 2006).Google Scholar
(2004). Privacy and forensic DNA databases. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–196.Google Scholar
(1993). Evaluating the admissibility of new genetic Identification tests: lessons from the ‘DNA war’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84, 22–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Evaluating and challenging forensic DNA evidence. The Champion, July, 12–21.Google Scholar
(1990). FBI Oversight and Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 1990 (DNA Identification). 101st Cong., 1st sess. [Hearing took place in 1989.] Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
(1992). DNA Identification. 101st Cong., 1st sess., House Serial 30/Senate Serial J-101–47. [Hearing took place in 1989] Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
(2004). The Constitutionality of Forensic DNA Databanks: 4th Amendment Issues, updated 2005. Boston, MA: American Society of Law and Ethicswww.aslme.org/dna_04/reports/winickoff_update.pdf (accessed 14 October 2008).Google Scholar
(1994). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Frye. v. United States of America (1923). 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Circ. Court).
People v. Joseph Castro (1989). 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Bronx County Sup. Court).
People of New York v. George Wesley and Cameron Bailey (1988). 533 N.Y.S.2d 643 (Albany County Court, 1988).
People v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995). Los Angeles County Superior Court, BA 097211, WL 672670.
State v. Richard C. Cauthorn (1993). 846 P.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Washington, 1993).
State v. Thomas Robert Schwartz (1989). 447 N.W.2d 422 (Supreme Court of Minnesota).
Tommie Lee Andrews v. State of Florida (1988). 533 So.2d 841 (Fl. Court Appeals, 1988). [Original trial was unpublished: State of Florida v. Tommie Lee Andrews (Orange County Circuit Court, 1987).]
United States of America v. Stephen Wayne Yee et al. (1991). 134 F.R.D. 161 (US District Court for Northern District of Ohio, 1991 (adopting Magistrate's Report)).
- 1
- Cited by