This house would have a criminal DNA database

Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator¹. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified. Studies support this assertion; 'the overall detection rate for crimes of 23.5% rises to 38% where DNA is successfully recovered'². Furthermore, in the United States, the number of reported rapes dropped to its lowest level in two decades due in large part to the use of DNA evidence^3
1 Weathersbee, F. (1999, March 1). National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Institute of Justice: 
² Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: 
³ McGreal, C. (2009, October 8). Number of reported rapes in US drops to lowest level in two decades. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry; evidence collected by a UK Parliamentary Commission suggests DNA matching led to crime detection in as little as 0.3% of cases¹. Ultimately, unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed
¹ Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

improve this

The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases¹. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensures suspects are not called in for unnecessary and stressful questioning. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases of death row inmates being released on the grounds of DNA evidence, unavailable when they were first convicted. A DNA database would not merely render wrong verdicts right, but prevent such verdicts ever being made.
¹ U.S. Department of Justice. (1996, June). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice:

improve this

The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in 'non-suspect' cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified. It is also important to keep claims regarding the efficacy of DNA matching in context, Chief Constable Sims of the British Metropolitan Police stated that of '4.9 million crimes reported each year, of which 1.3 million are 'detected' (lead to charges)' only 33,000 involve DNA matching¹.
¹ Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10 crime scene profiles loaded to the National DNA Database were matched to a subject profile'¹. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty.
¹ NDNAD. (2009). National DNA Database: Annual Report 2007-09. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from

There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. 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 comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.

improve this

Although overall levels of crime in England and Wales have decreased over the previous decade, the number of violent crimes against the person has markedly increased. These are the offences which raise most grave public concern and which are unlikely to leave conventional fingerprints. The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence estimates that thirty per cent of crime scenes contain the blood, semen, or saliva of the perpetrator¹. DNA detection will be best equipped to identify the guilty. A full database ought to allow the use of DNA as an investigative tool where no suspect has yet been identified. Studies support this assertion; 'the overall detection rate for crimes of 23.5% rises to 38% where DNA is successfully recovered'². Furthermore, in the United States, the number of reported rapes dropped to its lowest level in two decades due in large part to the use of DNA evidence^3
1 Weathersbee, F. (1999, March 1). National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from National Institute of Justice: 
² Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian: 
³ McGreal, C. (2009, October 8). Number of reported rapes in US drops to lowest level in two decades. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

The most serious violent crimes, notably the offences of rape and murder, are most commonly committed by individuals known to the victim. When the suspects for the commission of a crime are obvious, DNA detection is superfluous. Moreover, it is invidious to propagate the belief in the public that crimes can be solved, or criminals deterred, by computer wizardry; evidence collected by a UK Parliamentary Commission suggests DNA matching led to crime detection in as little as 0.3% of cases¹. Ultimately, unless the DNA is used to identify a genetic cause for aggression, violent crimes will continue to be committed
¹ Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

improve this

The increased use of DNA evidence will minimize the risk of future wrongful convictions. An FBI study indicates that since 1989 DNA evidence has excluded the primary candidate in 25% of sexual assault cases¹. This not only saves valuable police time, but ensures suspects are not called in for unnecessary and stressful questioning. Moreover, forensically valuable DNA can be found on evidence that has existed for decades, and thus assist in reversing previous miscarriages of justice. There have been a number of recent, high-profile cases of death row inmates being released on the grounds of DNA evidence, unavailable when they were first convicted. A DNA database would not merely render wrong verdicts right, but prevent such verdicts ever being made.
¹ U.S. Department of Justice. (1996, June). Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from U.S. Department of Justice:

improve this

The database is immaterial to the acquittal or exclusion of non-offenders. Where a primary suspect has been identified, a DNA profile ought to be created and compared to the crime scene data. Likewise, where suspicions persist concerning the guilt or innocence of a convicted individual, a sample of DNA can be taken. The database has predominant application in 'non-suspect' cases, and not the circumstances where the suspect or felon is already identified. It is also important to keep claims regarding the efficacy of DNA matching in context, Chief Constable Sims of the British Metropolitan Police stated that of '4.9 million crimes reported each year, of which 1.3 million are 'detected' (lead to charges)' only 33,000 involve DNA matching¹.
¹ Home Affairs Committee. (2010, March 4). The National DNA Database. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from UK Parliament:

A DNA database is not intended to replace conventional criminal investigation. The database ought to identify the potential suspects, each of whom can then be investigated by more conventional means. During 2008/09 in the United Kingdom, 'almost 6 in 10 crime scene profiles loaded to the National DNA Database were matched to a subject profile'¹. There is no possibility of escaping the provision of technical evidence before a court. Doctors, ballistics experts, forensic scientists are already a common feature of the large criminal trial. The jury system is actually a bastion against conviction on account of complicated scientific facts. The British jury is instructed to acquit a defendant where they find reasonable doubt. If the genetic data and associated evidence is insufficiently conclusive, or presented without sufficient clarity, the jury is obliged to find the defendant not guilty.
¹ NDNAD. (2009). National DNA Database: Annual Report 2007-09. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from

There is no such guarantee that a DNA database would have such an effect. In fact, there is a serious risk that genetic evidence will be used to the exclusion of material that might prove the innocence of the suspect. It is further likely that more crimes will be prosecuted on account of largely circumstantial evidence. 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 comprehend, or more importantly, to question, the genetic information that is yielded by the database. The irony is that forensic evidence has been instrumental in establishing the miscarriages of British justice in the 1970s, but might now serve to create miscarriages of its own.

improve this

The European Court of Human Rights was quite clear when it stated that retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful¹. The Strasbourg court made a unanimous decision that the UK keeping the DNA of the unconvicted on a database permanently was contrary to human rights and therefore illegal. They stated that due to the high level of disruption to human rights, on this issue the court would not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway. Subsequent attempts to justify the database have been dismissed by the Commission as failing to provide 'clear, justifiable reasons for holding on to the DNA data from people who had not been convicted of a crime'². The Commission also felt the retention of DNA profiles 'failed to recognise there were a disproportionate number of young black men, vulnerable people and children on the database'^2
1 BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News:
² Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer:

Retaining the DNA of unconvicted suspects is not unlawful, only retaining it indefinitely. New British proposals to meet the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights' judgment are to ensure the DNA of the unconvicted remains on the database for just 6 years. The law has to be laid down in a set manner rather than imprecise terms. Loopholes are often found but in the long run, they are what create a fair and just legal system. We cannot have loose laws, everything must turn on the wording. The ruling stated that the DNA of the innocent could not be saved indefinitely, so the British government is proposing that this DNA only be kept on the system for 6 years. They have done what the Court has asked them to do, to take away the permanency; a DNA database remains.

improve this

Although DNA detection might have advantages over fingerprint dusting, the test is nevertheless fallible. Environmental factors at the crime scene such as heat, sunlight, or bacteria can corrupt any genetic data. Any DNA evidence must be stored in sterile and temperature controlled conditions. Criminals have been suspected of contaminating samples by swapping saliva. There is room for human error or fraud in comparing samples taken from suspects with those removed from a crime scene. The accuracy of any genetic profile is dependent upon the number of genes examined. Where less than four or five genes can be investigated, the PCR technique serves only to exaggerate any defects or omissions in the sample. In 1995 an 18 month investigation was launched into allegations that the FBI Crime Lab was 'dry-labbing' or faking results of DNA comparisons¹. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom, the company used by police to analyse its DNA samples was shown to have secretly kept the genetic samples and personal details of 'hundreds of thousands' of arrested people, stoking fears that, if lost, they could be planted as evidence². The mere creation of a database cannot be the panacea for crime detection.
¹ Johnston, D. (1997, April 16). Report criticizes scientific testing at F.B.I Crime Lab. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times: 
² Barnett, A. (2006, July 16). Police DNA database 'is spiralling out of control'. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

improve this

DNA fingerprinting has considerable advantages over conventional means of forensic crime detection, advantages that render any slight fallibility irrelevant. Conventional fingerprints attach only to hard surfaces, can be smeared, or avoided by the use of gloves. Even a clear print requires a significant degree of interpretation by investigating officers. The standard technique of comparing fourteen points between the print taken at the crime scene and the print of the accused has been subject to severe criticism. The novel 'polymerase chain reaction' (PCR) amplification technique facilitates an accurate DNA profile from very small amounts of genetic data. The fingerprint can be constructed notwithstanding contamination from oil, water or acid in the crime scene environment. The innocent and the accused should appreciate a novel fingerprinting technique that is both objective and accurate. Lastly, fears of wrongful conviction are misguided, a 2002 study found only 'two cases worldwide'¹.
¹ Phillipson, G. (2009, November 19). The case for a complete DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Guardian:

improve this

The invasiveness of the database resides in the information being maintained on file, rather than in the procedure for obtaining the genetic data. The decision to pass personal information to mortgage or insurance agencies is governed by individual consent. When the citizen releases information to outside agencies he receives 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 investigation. Moreover, medical records are already subject to a significant degree of statutory protection from investigation. The use of genetic tests by insurance companies remains highly controversial. There is considerable potential for abuse of information that is so private, the person giving the sample will probably not know its contents and they will certainly not know the possible ways the information may be used¹. Finally, there is a subtle yet significant difference in the attitude of government towards the citizen that is conveyed by the creation of a database. Every citizen, some from the moment of their birth, would be treated as a potential criminal.
¹ BBC News. (2007, September 5). All UK 'must be on DNA database'. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from BBC News:

improve this

The use of a DNA fingerprint can scarcely be regarded as an affront to civil liberties and therefore requiring consent. Firstly, as a British Home Office spokeswoman noted, 'before a person's profile can be added to (the database), the person must have been arrested for a recordable offence. That is a significant threshold'². Furthermore, the procedure for taking a sample of DNA is less invasive than that required for the removal of blood. The police already possess a vast volume of information relating to the citizenry. The National Crime Information Center Computer in the United States contains files relating to fifteen million Americans and receives approximately seven million queries each day². The availability of a DNA fingerprint to the police should be seen in the context of the personal information that is already held by outside agencies. Insurance brokers commonly require an extensive medical history of their clients. Employers subject their employees to random urine tests for drug and alcohol consumption. If we are prepared to place our personal information in the private sector, why can we not trust it to the public authority of the police? The DNA will only be utilised in the detection of crime. In short, the innocent citizen should have nothing to fear.
¹ Doward, J. (2009, August 9). 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from The Observer:
² National Crime Information Center. (2009). About Us. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Federal Bureau of Investigation:

improve this