Advertisement

DNA Searches: A Liberal Communitarian Approach

  • Amitai Etzioni
Chapter
  • 257 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan’s Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity book series (PSCYBER)

Abstract

Arguments concerning the conditions under which public authorities may collect, analyze, and retain DNA samples and profiles for the purpose of investigating crimes (“forensic DNA usages”) are often couched in terms of a familiar debate between individual rights and the common good. That is, the arguments are framed as a confrontation between those who champion individual rights, especially privacy, and those concerned with the common good, especially public safety and national security. Members of the first camp frequently argue that forensic DNA usages without “individualized suspicion,” without specific authorization by the courts, constitute a gross violation of basic rights. Those of the second camp often argue that these searches significantly curb crime, including terrorism, and that the interventions involved are limited.

Keywords

Criminal Justice System Common Good Crime Scene Partial Match Forensic Laboratory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Amitai Etzioni, “NSA: National Security vs. Individual Rights,” Intelligence and National Security 29 (2014): 1;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amitai Etzioni, How Patriotic is the Patriot Act? Freedom Versus Security in the Age of Terrorism (2004);Google Scholar
  3. Amitai Etzioni, “Public Health Law: A Communitarian Perspective,” Health Affairs 21 (2002): 102; Amitai Etzioni, “Who Will Guard the Guardian?” The Atlantic, February 3, 2014;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amitai Etzioni, The Limits of Privacy (2000).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    David Lazer and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, “Statutory Frameworks for Regulating Information Flows: Drawing Lessons for the DNA Data Banks from Other Government Data Systems,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34 (2006): 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 4.
    Nancy Beatty Gregoire, “Federal Probation Joins the World of DNA Collection,” Federal Probation Journal 66 (2002): 30;Google Scholar
  7. Frederick R. Bieber, “Turning Base Hits into Earned Runs: Improving the Effectiveness of Forensic DNA Data Bank Programs,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34 (2006): 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 5.
    Russ Hoyle, “The FBI’s national DNA database,” Nature Biotechnology 16 (1998): 987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 14.
    Helena Machado and Susana Silva, “Informed Consent in Forensic DNA Databases: Volunteering, Constructions of Risk and Identity Categorization,” Bio-Societies 4, 4 (2009): 335–48.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Candice Roman-Santos, “Concerns Associated with Expanding DNA Databases,” Hastings Science and Technology Journal 2 (2011): 267.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    George J. Annas, “Privacy Rules for DNA Databanks: Protecting Coded ‘Future Diaries,’” Journal of the American Medical Association 270 (1993): 2346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 20.
    Subbaya Subramanian, Rakesh K. Mishra, and Lalji Singh, “Genome-wide Analysis of Microsatellite Repeats in Humans: Their Abundance and Density in Specific Genome Regions,” Genome Biology 4 (2003): R13; see also Harvey Lodish et al., Molecular CellBiology, 224 (2008): Simple-sequence DNA, which includes satellite DNA, minisatellites, and microsatellites, comprises about 6 percent of the human genome.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 21.
    Rebecca Laird, Peter M. Schneider, and Silvana Guadieri, “STRs as Potential Disease Markers: A Study of VWA and von Willbrand’s Disease,” Forensic Science International: Genetics 1 (2007): 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 22.
    P. Bennett, “Demystified… microsatellites,” Molecular Pathology 53 (2000): 177: SSRs can either be protein-coding or noncoding, and only about 3 percent of the human genome codes for proteins. Meanwhile, functional DNA, which regulates gene transcription and helps to maintain the structure of chromosomes, “is thought to comprise less than a sixth of the total human genome.” The sum of all DNA with any known function represents only about 30 percent of the human genome. All forensic loci are chosen from the remaining 70 percent.); see also Gábor Tóth, Zoltán Gáspári, andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jerzy Jurka, “Microsatellites in Different Eukaryotic Organisms: Survey and Analysis,” Genome Research 10 (2000): 957.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Natalie Ram, “Fortuity and Forensic Familial Identification,” Stanford Law Review 63 (2011): 751.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    The CODIS website states that “CODIS was designed to compare a target DNA record against the DNA records contained in the database. Once a match is identified by the CODIS software, the laboratories involved in the match exchange information to verify the match […] to establish probable cause to obtain an evidentiary DNA sample from the suspect. […]The casework laboratory can then perform a DNA analysis on the known biological sample so that this analysis can be presented as evidence in court. See FBI Laboratory Services, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the CODIS Program and the National DNA Index System,, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet.Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    Aaron P. Stevens, “Arresting Crime: Expanding the Scope of DNA Databases in America,” Texas Law Review 79 (2001): 921.Google Scholar
  19. 38.
    Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family: Privacy and Familial DNA Searching,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 23, 2 (2010): 323.Google Scholar
  20. 39.
    Robin Williams and Paul Johnson, “Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2006): 234; see also Sonia M. Suter, “All in the Family,” 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 43.
    Dane C. Barca, “Familial DNA Testing, House Bill 3361, and the Need for Federal Oversight,” Hastings Law Journal 64 (2013): 518; see alsoGoogle Scholar
  22. Rebecca Dresser, “Families and Forensic DNA Profiles,” Hastings Center Report 41 (2011): 12;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rori V. Rohlfs et al., “The Influence of Relatives on the Efficiency and Error Rate of Familial Searching,” PLoS One 8 (2013): 9;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henry T. Greely et al., “Family Ties: The Use of DNA Offender Databases to Catch Offenders’ Kin,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34, 2 (2006): 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 44.
    Joyce Kim, Danny Mammo, Marni B. Siegel, and Sarah H. Katsanis, all of the Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy at Duke University, point out that partial match searches often generate unnecessarily large suspect pools. See Joyce Kim et al., “Policy Implications for Familial Searching,” Investigative Genetics 2, 1 (2011): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 45.
    Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan, “The Need for Caution in the Use of DNA Evidence to Avoid Convicting the Innocent,” International Journal of Evidence and Proof 45 (2001): 245–57.Google Scholar
  27. 46.
    Erin E. Murphy, “Familial DNA Searches: The Opposing Viewpoint,” Criminal Justice 27 (2012): 20.Google Scholar
  28. 51.
    Sepideh Esmaili, “Searching for a Needle in a Haystack: The Constitutionality of Police DNA Dragnets,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 82 (2007): 495.Google Scholar
  29. 53.
    Jeffrey S. Grand, “The Blooding of America: Privacy and the DNA Dragnet,” Cardozo Law Review 23 (2002): 2280;Google Scholar
  30. Christopher Slobogin, “Government Dragnets,” Law & Contemporary Problems 73 (2010): 123: “Privacy violations [are] inherent in the DNA dragnet”;Google Scholar
  31. Fred W. Drobner, “DNA Dragnets: Constitutional Aspects of Mass DNA Identification Testing,” Capital University Law Review 28 (2000): 479; Sepideh Esmaili, “Searching for a Needle in a Haystack,” 495.Google Scholar
  32. 54.
    Mark A. Rothstein and Meghan K. Talbott, “The Expanding Use of DNA in Law Enforcement: What Role for Privacy?” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 24 (2009): 156.Google Scholar
  33. 56.
    Kevin Hartnett, “The DNA in Your Garbage: Up for Grabs,” Boston Globe, May 12, 2013, http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/05/11/the-dna-your-garbage-for-grabs/sU12MtVLkoypLlqu2iF6IL/story.html; see also Holly K. Fernandez, “Genetic Privacy, Abandonments, and DNA Dragnets: Is Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Adequate?” Hastings Center Report 35 (2005): 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 58.
    Holly K. Fernandez, “Genetic Privacy, Abandonments, and DNA Dragnets: Is Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Adequate?” Hastings Center Report 35 (2005): 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 59.
    Elizabeth E. Joh, “Reclaiming Abandoned’ DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy,” Northwestern University Law Review 100 (2006): 874, 875.Google Scholar
  36. 62.
    Kristy Holtfreter et al., “Public Perceptions of White-Collar Crime and Punishment,” Journal of Criminal Justice 36, 1 (2008): 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 65.
    Howard Cooke, “DNA and Police Files,” Lancet 342, 8864 (1993): 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 66.
    Michael Purtill, “Everybody’s Got a Price: Why Orange County’s Practice of Taking DNA Samples from Misdemeanor Arrestees is an Excessive Fine,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 101 (2011): 311;Google Scholar
  39. David Skinner, “The NDNAD Has No Ability in Itself to be Discriminatory: Ethnicity and the Governance of the UK National DNA Database,” Sociology 47 (2013): 977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 68.
    Carole McCartney, “Forensic DNA Sampling and the England and Wales National DNA Database: A Sceptical Approach,” Critical Criminology 12 (2004): 157;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Michael E. Smith, “Let’s Make the DNA Identification Database as Inclusive as Possible,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 34 (2006): 288;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robert Williamson and Rony Duncan, “DNA Testing for All,” Nature 418, 6898 (2002): 585; Christine Rosen, “Liberty, Privacy, and DNA Databases,” The New Atlantis (Spring 2003), http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/liberty-privacy-and-dna-databases;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. D. H. Kaye and Michael E. Smith, “DNA Databases for Law Enforcement: The Coverage Question and the Case for a Population-wide Database,” in D. Lazer, ed., DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, 247–84 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004); Akhil Reed Amar, “A Search for Justice in Our Genes,” The New York Times, May 7, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/opinion/a-search-for-justice-in-our-genes.html;Google Scholar
  44. Kathleen M. Donovan and Charles F. Klahm IV, “Prosecuting Science: The Rational Defence of Mandatory DNA Databases,” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 48 (2009): 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 73.
    Jeremy Gans, “Something to Hide: DNA, Surveillance and Self-incrimination,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice (2001) 13: 168–84, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030450.Google Scholar
  46. 74.
    Janet C. Hoeffel, “The Dark Side of DNA Profiling: Unreliable Scientific Evidence Meets the Criminal Defendant,” Stanford Law Review 42 (1990): 465, 533;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Dan L. Burk and Jennifer A. Hess, “Genetic Privacy: Constitutional Considerations in Forensic DNA Testing,” George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal 5 (1994): 17.Google Scholar
  48. 75.
    Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, (1966), cited in Paul C. Giannelli, “ABA Standards on DNA Evidence: Nontestimonial Identification Orders,” Criminal Justice 24 (2009): 24.Google Scholar
  49. 76.
    Nicholas Soares, “The Right to Remain Encrypted: The Self-incrimination Doctrine in the Digital Age,” American Criminal Law Review 49 (2012): 2001, 2004.Google Scholar
  50. 78.
    Michael S. Pardo, “Disentangling the Fourth Amendment and the Self-incrimination Clause,” Iowa Law Review 90 (2005): 1870: “Non-verbal conduct, however, may be testimonial: For example, the act of responding to a subpoena by providing a requested object discloses one’s (1) knowledge that the object exists, (2) possession of it, and (3) belief that the provided object is the one demanded. Physical evidence, by contrast, is not ‘testimony’ and hence an individual forced to disclose it is not protected, even if the evidence is compelled and incriminating. This includes evidence (including DNA evidence) taken from a suspect’s body.”Google Scholar
  51. 79.
    Nita A. Farahany, “Incriminating Thoughts,” Stanford Law Review 64, 2 (2012): 351.Google Scholar
  52. 83.
    Andromachi Tseloni et al., “Exploring the International Decline in Crime Rates,” European Journal of Criminology 7 (2010): 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 90.
    Ricky Ansell, “Internal Quality Control in Forensic DNA Analysis,” Accreditation and Quality Assurance 18 (2013): 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 92.
    William C. Thompson, “Subjective Interpretation, Laboratory Error and the Value of Forensic DNA Evidence: Three Case Studies,” Genetica 96 (1995): 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 105.
    J. K. Roman et al., “The DNA Field Experiment: Cost-effectiveness of the Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes,” Urban Institute Justice Policy Center (April 2008), cited in David B. Wilson et al., “Does Forensic DNA Help to Solve Crime? The Benefit of Sophisticated Answers to Naïve Questions,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 26 (2010): 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 108.
    Matthew Gabriel et al., “Beyond the Cold Hit: Measuring the Impact of the National DNA Data Bank on Public Safety at the City and County Level,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 38 (2010): 399; John K. Roman et al., “The DNA Field Experiment,” 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 112.
    Ricky Ansell, “Internal Quality Control in Forensic DNA Analysis,” Accreditation and Quality Assurance 18 (2013): 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 116.
    William C. Thompson, “Are Juries Competent to Evaluate Statistical Evidence?” Law and Contemporary Problems 52 (1989): 9–10, 41;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jason Schklar and Shari Seidman Diamond, “Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and Expectancies,” Law and Human Behavior 23 (1999): 159;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Dan Frumkin, Adam Wasserstrom, Ariane Davidson, and Arnon Grafit, “Authentication of Forensic DNA samples,” Forensic Science International: Genetics 4 (2010): 102.Google Scholar
  61. 127.
    Greg Hampikian et al., “The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA Exonerations,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 98 (2011): 104.Google Scholar
  62. 130.
    Greg Hampikian et al., “The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA Exonerations,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 98 (2011): 104.Google Scholar
  63. 131.
    Amitai Etzioni, The Limits of Privacy (2000): 14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Amitai Etzioni 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amitai Etzioni

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations