DNA & Crime

[August1991]

A push to require all convicted criminals in New York to submit their DNA to a central database is gaining crucial support in Albany, where officials say it could create the most comprehensive DNA collection system in the nation.

If the proposal becomes law, it would make New York the only state to require collecting DNA from everyone convicted of felonies and misdemeanors, including youthful offenders convicted in criminal court, officials said.

Currently, 43 states require that people convicted of all felonies submit DNA, but none require samples from those convicted of all misdemeanors, and New York has required those convicted only of some felonies and some misdemeanors to do so , officials said.

NYT

Should the federal government do as US states are doing? Would this not be the best anti-crime measure possible now?

The BNA Act refers to "peace, order and good government" and the stereotype (at least in English-Canada) is that Canadians prefer a strong State able to enforce the law.

So then, should the federal government collect DNA samples from all people found guilty of a summary conviction? We could also give the police the authority to obtain DNA samples if they have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred.

How far should we go with this?

[geoffrey]

Sex crimes and murders ok.

If I have to give DNA for a speeding ticket (a summary conviction) then I'd be a little pissed off.

The costs would be massively inflated, no doubt, as they usually are in government data projects. I really have little faith in governments having databases since the gun registry. It's already been proven that criminals regularly hack into the registry to find guns to steal and use in crimes. Why would I trust DNA with these people too?

Cost and security are big issues. And how widespread the law is, like I said, summary convictions and greater offenses is a rather broad way to define the people that need to cough up some DNA.

[BHS]

I don't see why having a DNA profile on file with the government is more intrusive than having to have a social insurance number, assuming it's used for identification purposes only. It should be a requirement of citizenship.

[geoffrey]

I don't see why having a DNA profile on file with the government is more intrusive than having to have a social insurance number, assuming it's used for identification purposes only. It should be a requirement of citizenship.

That's a tough assumption. Why not just provide all your info to the government then, using your logic we shouldn't care if the government knows all about us.

Personally, I don't trust others judgement in using my information.

[Leafless]

August1991

This could in my opinion set a dangerous precident.

You could be implicated for a crime you have had nothing to do with if you were as unfortunate for instance as spitting at a crime scene prior to a murder.

With your DNA being on record could implicate you with possible very serious consequences.

I think DNA serves it's purpose in crime solving but should be left as a last resort and associated with real suspects and not a blob of some one elses saliva who,s DNA could be on record.

[fixer1]

The trouble with having a database for DNA is that is just does not stop there. Once the government has this they can see if you are susceptible to Alhiemers disease, or any of any number of thing. This then could be used against you for insurance or employment even safety and security reasons. Once the genie is out, there is no going back. How would you like to never be considered for the pub lic service because you are susceptible to dibilitating diseases and may have too much sick time? Or to have no give you life insurance because you have genetic indicators that are troubling.

When you start talking about DNA, it means that in the present and future there is nothing they will not know about who and what you are. No person in the past woulod have ever known so much about your intimate make up as those with access to the DNA database.

[BHS]

The trouble with having a database for DNA is that is just does not stop there. Once the government has this they can see if you are susceptible to Alhiemers disease, or any of any number of thing. This then could be used against you for insurance or employment even safety and security reasons. Once the genie is out, there is no going back. How would you like to never be considered for the pub lic service because you are susceptible to dibilitating diseases and may have too much sick time? Or to have no give you life insurance because you have genetic indicators that are troubling.

When you start talking about DNA, it means that in the present and future there is nothing they will not know about who and what you are. No person in the past woulod have ever known so much about your intimate make up as those with access to the DNA database.

Sorry, I don't buy any of this. It's easy enough to legally limit the uses to which the government can put your DNA sample, such that it can only be used for identification purposes. If you're concerned that the government won't limit itself to what it's own laws allow then you're opening a whole new can of worms that really needs it's own discussion thread.

The government, by running the healthcare system, already has access to your medical files. It's not like your family doctor keeps that information in a locked vault. Under laws as they currently exist, that information can't be used against you in the manner you postulated above. I find it hard to believe that a DNA profile would be more susceptible to abuse.

Furthermore, the government goes out of its way to hire people who suffer from handicaps and medical conditions without regard to the potential for excessive sick time, in the name of "diversity". I don't believe that the government could suddenly justify the refusal to hire a healthy person because of a potential for illness down the road. If anything, they'd end up putting such people into their own little identity group and setting up a hiring quota for them.

Leaving aside that it's so far in the future as to render our current conception of laws and rights and civic responsibilites moot, your last paragraph proposes what I believe to be an impossible situation - a future where our knowledge is so advance that a DNA profile can be read like an simple instruction manual, yet genetic flaws and defects remain unpreventable and untreatable, and therefore a burden for the government and other employers to avoid.

We'll all be long dead from bird flu or glaciation before then anyway.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

the government goes out of its way to hire people who suffer from handicaps and medical conditions without regard to the potential for excessive sick time, in the name of "diversity". ...If anything, they'd end up putting such people into their own little identity group and setting up a hiring quota for them.

Too true.

your last paragraph proposes what I believe to be an impossible situation - a future where our knowledge is so advance that a DNA profile can be read like an simple instruction manual, yet genetic flaws and defects remain unpreventable and untreatable, and therefore a burden for the government and other employers to avoid.

We're here now. Blood panel screening, etc, is used to deny insurance coverage, (this happened to me, and they would not tell me why)etc. Employers have expressed keen interest in DNA databases.

[geoffrey]

Like I said, if they can't keep what firearms are in my house secret, I don't trust them with my DNA.

I'm already on a hit-list for gun hungry gangsters, why would I do want to be on another list for people waiting to deny me insurance coverage or a job?

The government can't be trusted with information, they fail us everytime. Now my family is at risk because I obeyed the law and now am on a neat organized list with my name and address for anyone that wants a gun. It's easy to accesss, hundreds of illegal accesses to the firearms registry are done monthly.

Every registered firearm is one break in away from being used in a crime.

I apply the same thoughts to DNA, why would I trust them more with that if they can't make a simply registry effective and secure?

[BHS]

We're here now. Blood panel screening, etc, is used to deny insurance coverage, (this happened to me, and they would not tell me why)etc. Employers have expressed keen interest in DNA databases.

That's not the point I was making - I was countering a specific statement made in the post I was replying to about being able to know everything about a person's physical status from a DNA sample, which currently isn't possible.

Again, I don't doubt that insurance companies and employers will express all of the interest in the world in having access to a government DNA database, but that doesn't mean they should get it. That's not something I support at all. I support using such a database for identification purposes only, and it would be easy enough to codify that distinct and limited purpose into the laws that create the database.

As to your own example, I'm willing to be you supplied the blood sample upon a request made by your insurance company, which is a pretty standard practice, especially if your purchasing life insurance. Willfully allowing an insurer to screen your blood is not what we're talking about at all, even if it is painfully intrusive. (It's really no different than the civil liberties you willingly forego every time you board an airliner.)

[August1991]

This could in my opinion set a dangerous precident.

You could be implicated for a crime you have had nothing to do with if you were as unfortunate for instance as spitting at a crime scene prior to a murder.

My first fear too. I'm afraid that DNA evidence could be considered as incontrovertible - prima facie evidence. Then I thought again. The Western legal system, like science itself, is based on testing evidence. DNA evidence will have to meet the same standards.

The trouble with having a database for DNA is that is just does not stop there. Once the government has this they can see if you are susceptible to Alhiemers disease, or any of any number of thing. This then could be used against you for insurance or employment even safety and security reasons. Once the genie is out, there is no going back.

Very good points, fixer. But you mix two separate points.

Let me first consider the "insurance company can identify you" point. People now go to school to get a diploma to identify themselves as educated so they can get a job. It is hardly new to identify ourselves. What's different is that insurance schemes have generally had a worse time than labour markets, or vegetable markets. Come to think about it, vegetable "markets" had a hard time 100,000 years ago because no one could count. The idea of comparison shopping is practical, but new. Same with diplomas, and DNA info.

Let me consider second the "government has our info" idea. Here, I tend to agree with you. I don't want a central agency to have all this information, unless it is an agency under severe second and third independent checks.

Like I said, if they can't keep what firearms are in my house secret, I don't trust them with my DNA.

I'm already on a hit-list for gun hungry gangsters, why would I do want to be on another list for people waiting to deny me insurance coverage or a job?

In Russia, people don't declare their incomes honestly because it would just be an invitation to theft. I wonder how many Canadians reason the same way.

----

Leaving aside that it's so far in the future as to render our current conception of laws and rights and civic responsibilites moot, your last paragraph proposes what I believe to be an impossible situation - a future where our knowledge is so advance that a DNA profile can be read like an simple instruction manual, yet genetic flaws and defects remain unpreventable and untreatable, and therefore a burden for the government and other employers to avoid.

I don't want to make a science fiction hijack to this thread but I thought the movie "Minority Report" was fundamentally weak because it didn't rely on DNA evidence to predict when a criminal would commit a crime. If Spielberg/Kubrick had used a DNA device (instead of women floating in water receiving brainwaves), the film would have been far more controversial (and financially successful). (Huh? DNA versus young women in body suits in swimming tanks? I still think the DNA would have made more money.)

We'll all be long dead from bird flu or glaciation before then anyway.

Glaciation? I thought everyone was terrified by an equatorial Yukon. As to bird flu, I for one have now been convinced it will never be a pandemic. (What is this inflation of words, epidemic, pandemic... what's next? unidemic?). The relation between viruses and humans is just not so neat.

[BHS]

Like I said, if they can't keep what firearms are in my house secret, I don't trust them with my DNA.

The government tracks all kinds of information about you besides how many guns you have, including detailed financial information that you update for them yearly.

I'm already on a hit-list for gun hungry gangsters, why would I do want to be on another list for people waiting to deny me insurance coverage or a job?

This is a pretty poor comparison. I can picture gangsters sitting around saying, "Gee, I wish I could get my hands on a gun. Who's next on that list?" I can't picture insurers saying, "Gee, I wish I could deny somebody insurance. Who's next on that list?"

I take it to mean that an insurer will check the DNA registry after you've applied. But is a DNA profile designed for identification purposes really detailed enough to indicate the presence of genetic abnormality, other than the obvious extra/missing chromosome issues that would be visibly apparent anyway? If the CSI shows are in any way accurate, an identity profile is your DNA sample parsed down to something akin to a serial number. Which, really, isn't enough information to indicate whether or not your suseptible to lymphoma.

The government can't be trusted with information, they fail us everytime. Now my family is at risk because I obeyed the law and now am on a neat organized list with my name and address for anyone that wants a gun. It's easy to accesss, hundreds of illegal accesses to the firearms registry are done monthly.

Every registered firearm is one break in away from being used in a crime.

I don't disagree that the firearms registry was a bad idea that shouldn't have been impemented, for your reasons and a number of others. But are you really against all government data collection? Think about it. A fair system of taxation would be impossible without collecting supporting data. Tracking beef herds (and other similar forms of food production) would no longer be possible. Tracking cross border shipping would also be impossible. There is a long list of things we expect (demand, actually) that the government will keep track of.

Your last sentence has a ring of truthiness to it, but it's equally true that every unregistered firearm is also one break in away from being used in a crime. Which kind of moots your statement. I understand that you're intending to indicate that because the registry can be hacked there is an increased likelihood that a registered firearm will be stolen, but I think you'd have a hard time proving that anywhere but on paper.

[August1991]

A major problem with the gun registry was that it attempted to be comprehensive, and it tried to obtain information quickly. A DNA registry would accumulate specific data overtime.

----

The idea quoted below is even more radical. DNA testing is a question of degree and relationship. Over time, the DNA bank will start to provide "hits" on relatives and offspring.

Cops would solve more crimes if they expanded their use of the nation's DNA fingerprinting system to test close relatives of known criminals, according to a research report that raises novel and difficult civil liberties issues.

The proposed crime-control strategy, already in growing use in Britain, is based on two central facts: Close relatives of criminals are more likely than others to break the law, research has shown, and, because those individuals are related, their DNA "fingerprints" will be similar. That suggests that if police find a crime-scene specimen with a DNA pattern close to -- but not exactly the same as -- that of a known lawbreaker, a relative of that known criminal may be the culprit.

In Britain, where rules governing the use of DNA for fighting crime are more permissive than in most U.S. states, the approach has been used dozens of times and has helped solve several cases, said Frederick R. Bieber, a Harvard medical geneticist who led the new study with colleague David Lazer and Charles H. Brenner of the University of California at Berkeley.

In one recent case, for example, a specimen from a 1988 murder scene was found to have a DNA pattern similar to that of a 14-year-old boy whose DNA was on file with the police. Investigators obtained a sample from the teenager's uncle, which perfectly matched the crime scene specimen and led to his conviction.

Washington Post

[Riverwind]

The idea quoted below is even more radical. DNA testing is a question of degree and relationship. Over time, the DNA bank will start to provide "hits" on relatives and offspring.

A man in Oregon went through hell because a fingerprint database search linked him to the Madrid bombing (see link). I shudder to think what could happen to people who get picked up accidently as a result of random matches due to contaiminated evidence or police who think that all DNA tests are equally accurate.

[Michael Hardner]

A man in Oregon went through hell because a fingerprint database search linked him to the Madrid bombing (see link). I shudder to think what could happen to people who get picked up accidently as a result of random matches due to contaiminated evidence or police who think that all DNA tests are equally accurate.

That's a valid point, but do the benefits outweigh the costs ? Any large system has anomalies that cause grief for individuals here and there. Look at banking, credit ratings, the justice system for examples.

I agree with BHS. I think that we could greatly increase our collective security if we weren't so touchy about privacy issues. If security cameras were more prevalent in public places, there would be less crime. This amounts to the automation of policing, no less than manufacturing or software construction has been automated in recent times.

[BHS]

A man in Oregon went through hell because a fingerprint database search linked him to the Madrid bombing (see link). I shudder to think what could happen to people who get picked up accidently as a result of random matches due to contaiminated evidence or police who think that all DNA tests are equally accurate.

That's a valid point, but do the benefits outweigh the costs ? Any large system has anomalies that cause grief for individuals here and there. Look at banking, credit ratings, the justice system for examples.

I agree with BHS. I think that we could greatly increase our collective security if we weren't so touchy about privacy issues. If security cameras were more prevalent in public places, there would be less crime. This amounts to the automation of policing, no less than manufacturing or software construction has been automated in recent times.

The Oregon man was a former lawyer for a convicted jihadist conspirator. The lawyer was arrested on a material witness warrant because what were believed to be his fingerprints were found at a terrorist bombing site. There was no accident in his arrest.

I posit that if everyone's DNA were on record it would necessarily mean that criminal investigations of crimes and crime scenes would uncover trace from many innocent people, and that this would necessarily need to be factored into the investigation and that more caution would be taken in regard to arrests and accusations. But arrests like the one you mentioned would probably still happen in cases of international terrorist conspiracy, because it's less important to build a super solid pre-arrest case than it is to get a potential terrorist cell member off the streets.

I disagree about the idea of cameras making the world a safer place, based on the fact that London has one of the biggest security camera networks in the world and it's still a high-crime cesspool. (Read the article. True, it's from 2002 but the security network predates that. I just think it's interesting that Finland has one of the world's highest crime rates. Who would'a thunk it?)

Also, it's believed that the trend of English teens wearing black hoodies everywhere is specifically to shield their identities from the cameras. They all look the same on film. So you spend a bjillion dollars on cameras and you still can't tell the genuine soccer hooligans from the wannabes.

[August1991]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I simply don't believe these statistics. They come from the UN which means that it is simply reporting national statistics without any effort to compare comparables. In the UK and Finland, people likely report crimes.

According to the comparison of international crime statistics produced by the UN's Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England and Wales had 9,766 crimes for every 100,000 people in the year 2000. America had 8,517, South Africa 7,997, Germany 7,621 and Russia 2,022.

[sideshow]

A lot of great thoughts and intelligent comments here. I am undecided on this issue. I see the pro and cons, but at immediate glance i would have to say not a good idea. I just think about the gun registry (and i am not pro gun by the way) and i think that this could/would be another big expenditure without built in checks and balances that would cost more than its savings/worth.

[August1991]

Brimming with the genetic patterns of more than 3 million Americans, the nation's databank of DNA "fingerprints" is growing by more than 80,000 people every month, giving police an unprecedented crime-fighting tool but prompting warnings that the expansion threatens constitutional privacy protections.

Washington Post

(That's about 1 million new DNA records added each year. There are about 2.5 million new people, births and immigrants, added to the US population each year.)

Now some in law enforcement are calling for a national registry of every American's DNA profile, against which police could instantly compare crime-scene specimens. Advocates say the system would dissuade many would-be criminals and help capture the rest.

Everyone?

"Genetic material is a very powerful identifier, but it also happens to carry a heck of a lot of information about you," said Jim Harper, director of information policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington concerned about DNA database trends.

This is interesting because even without a comprehensive registry, DNA found at a crime scene could be used (in theory) to recreate an image of the person. It may also be possible to identify potential criminals from DNA.

Law enforcement officials say they have no interest in reading people's genetic secrets. The U.S. profiling system focuses on just 13 small regions of the DNA molecule -- regions that do not code for any known biological or behavioral traits but vary enough to give everyone who is not an identical twin a unique 52-digit number.

"It's like a Social Security number, but not assigned by the government," said Michael Smith, a University of Wisconsin law professor who favors a national database of every American's genetic ID with certain restrictions.

52-digits? Our 9-digit SIN has one check digit which means it can handle (potentially) up to 100 million different people.

In a recent British case, police retrieved DNA from a brick that was thrown from an overpass and smashed through a windshield, killing the driver. A near-match of that DNA with someone in Britain's criminal database led police to investigate that offender's relatives, one of whom confessed when confronted with the evidence.

Remarkable.

----

Having just gone through a census where the federal government asked many personal questions of a sub-sample of Canadians, it seems odd that there might be opposition to a DNA registry. The census will not do arguably much good for an average Canadian but a DNA registry might do a lot of good.

I think any opposition would be based on the natural fear of a monopoly, a single agency with this kind of information would possess alot of power. We generally only give this kind of power to a tax collecting agency.

I also wonder whether DNA identification will work so well in the future. With fingerprints, smart criminals learned to wear gloves. In this case, what stops a criminal from leaving someone else's DNA fingerprint at a crime scene?

[BHS]

Good post August. In answer to your last question, it seems obvious to me that even as things stand now, finding DNA evidence at a crime scene is not proof positive that a person was involved with a crime. DNA evidence needs to be corroborated, alibis need to be checked. Having ready identites for the DNA found doesn't change this.

[gc1765]

Law enforcement officials say they have no interest in reading people's genetic secrets. The U.S. profiling system focuses on just 13 small regions of the DNA molecule -- regions that do not code for any known biological or behavioral traits but vary enough to give everyone who is not an identical twin a unique 52-digit number.

"It's like a Social Security number, but not assigned by the government," said Michael Smith, a University of Wisconsin law professor who favors a national database of every American's genetic ID with certain restrictions.

Law enforcement officials may have better things to do than read people's DNA, but they would still have the potential to read it, and isn't that reason enough to avoid having a DNA database. And there's always a possibility of other people getting their hands on the information.

If you are convicted of a serious crime (like murder) then it makes sense to have your DNA on file. If you are a suspect then you should submit to a DNA test with a warrant, if you are found innocent get rid of the info. Other than that the government has absolutely no right to have your DNA info.

[August1991]

About 1 in 250 Canadians currently have their genetic profiles in a database

Now, Toronto's police chief wants a DNA sample from everyone charged with a serious crime, not just those convicted of one because, he says, DNA is a 'revolutionary crime-fighting tool.'

But critics wonder: Where do you draw the line?

...

Toronto police Chief Bill Blair hopes that, as soon as 2011, police will have the power to demand DNA samples from anyone charged – not just convicted – of serious crimes.

"DNA doesn't discriminate," said Blair. "It's a revolutionary crime-fighting tool."

Blair is championing a broadened genetic data bank even as police and privacy advocates throughout the Western world spar over who should be forced to surrender their DNA.

In a move that left civil libertarians aghast, the U.K. recently began collecting samples from suspects when they're charged – even shoplifters. More than 10 U.S. states have followed suit.

...

There are now more than 40,000 DNA samples from crime scenes in the Canadian database – many from unsolved cases. But taking samples when people are charged inevitably means the DNA of innocent people will be catalogued.

"Where do you draw the line?" asked criminal defence lawyer James Lockyer, who regularly represents the wrongfully convicted. "You could, on the basis of the public interest, justify rounding up the entire population and securing a DNA sample.

"I come down in favour of the right of private interests, as opposed to the very occasional cold case that may be solved based on the DNA samples taken from the tens of thousands of people who are not convicted."

Toronto Star

We give alot of private information to a bank when we borrow money, to an employer when we accept a job and when we pay taxes, we must fill out a complex form. To obtain a passport, we provide a photo of ourselves. Why is there objection to giving the police a DNA sample?

[kuzadd]

no the government should not build a dna data bank

One word -democide.

cause governments, throughout history kill more of their own people then all wars

Rummel defines democide as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder"

democide rampant unchecked government power.

Now with such history only the most foolish person would argue to arm the government with the further means to oppress a population.

[FTA Lawyer]

I hate to be a spoil-sport, but this topic is a bit like debating whether or not Titanic should head out on its maiden voyage...the ship has long-since sailed.

Justice Canada - DNA Databank Info

Canada has a comprehensive statutory framework for the collection of DNA from people convicted of criminal offences. Recent changes have even been made to increase its scope.

In my view, the law as we have it strkies an effective balance between all of the different concerns being debated here.

FTA

[August1991]

I hate to be a spoil-sport, but this topic is a bit like debating whether or not Titanic should head out on its maiden voyage...the ship has long-since sailed.

FTA, if you look at the date of the OP, you'll notice that the thread was started in May 2006.

According to the press release (October 2004) in your link, Canada's National DNA Data Bank dates from June 2000. The press release is about expanding whose DNA can be added to the databank. (Were these amendments passed? The list is quite restricted.)

But your point is taken. The question in the thread subtitle wonders whether we should have a Data Bank when in fact we already had one. In fact though, I don't think there's any issue about having such a bank. The question concerns whose DNA should be included.

It's also not clear when or who is now requesting DNA samples. For example, are DNA samples taken for background or security checks?

Edited April 13, 2008 by August1991