Should DNA be collected from all
criminals?
By Ron Scherer | Staff writer of The
Christian Science Monitor
May 19, 2006
ALBANY, N.Y. - In most
cities and states, vandalism, shoplifting, and loitering are
misdemeanors - possibly involving community service, not jail time. But
those who commit such low-level crimes in New York State may soon be
required to give DNA samples to authorities - just as convicted rapists
or murderers do.
If the Legislature passes the proposal, which is currently being
debated, New York would be the first state in the nation to require DNA
samples for all convicted offenders.
Gov. George Pataki (R), who is asking the Legislature to expand DNA
collection, argues that a larger database will help solve more crimes.
Supporters add it will help solve future crimes because criminals who
start off committing petty crimes sometimes graduate to more serious
offenses.
The Empire State's move comes as DNA work in criminal investigations is
under closer scrutiny. Complaints are rising about mistakes - some
inadvertent, others fraudulent - at DNA labs around the country. Groups
that have championed the use of DNA to verify the guilt or innocence of
convicts are now campaigning against large-scale expansion of the
practice, saying it would overwhelm labs. Others cite concerns about
the increasing number of innocent people whose DNA is stored in a
databank without their knowledge or approval.
"People have come to appreciate the power of DNA to solve crimes. They
now need to respect the care that is required to maximize its potential
and avoid its abuse," says Stephen Saloom, policy director for the
Innocence Project, which has used DNA testing to free 176 prisoners
wrongfully convicted.
Twenty-eight states now collect samples for some misdemeanors,
according to DNAResource.com, a website that tracks DNA policies. A
week ago, Kansas joined California and five other states in going one
step further: taking the DNA samples of some people arrested, but not
necessarily charged, with a crime.
"They all tend to be violent felony and burglary arrestees," says Lisa
Hurst, a government-affairs consultant with Smith Alling Lane, which
represents Applied Biosystems, a maker of DNA testing equipment. Smith
Alling Lane also runs DNAResource.com.
New York's proposal, however, would go the furthest, requiring DNA
collection for all convicted of misdemeanors. This would add about
80,000 additional DNA profiles per year to the DNA bank, say
researchers at the state's Division of Criminal Justice.
It would be well worth the effort, says Chauncey Parker, director of
criminal justice for the state. "Whenever we get DNA from a convicted
offender, we run it against the 18,000 unsolved crimes, mostly rapes,
and we have 2,400 hits so far. When we look at those hits, we find on
average when [an arrestee] is convicted, it's [his or her] 12th
conviction."
He cites the example of Raymon McGill arrested July 25 for attempted
robbery. DNA testing linked Mr. McGill to two earlier murders and a
rape, says Mr. Parker. He also notes that McGill had been arrested in
1999 for a misdemeanor.
"Had we required DNA fingerprinting back then, he would have been
linked to the rape and the case solved," says Parker.
On Monday, critics of the New York proposal publicly complained that
the backlog of cases is already large. Tom Duane (D), the only state
senator to vote against the New York measure, worries about the cost of
expansion, as well as how to ensure proper training of personnel and
storage of the samples. "What good will it do if it's not done right?"
he asked.
Such concerns go well beyond New York. In February, the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in their magazine, published
an article detailing mistakes that have cropped up at DNA labs around
the country. "Many of the mistakes arise from cross-contamination or
mislabeling of DNA samples," wrote William Thompson, a professor at the
University of California, Irvine.
Thompson's concerns arise just as states and cities are expanding their
use of DNA testing. Los Angeles County is preparing to open a new crime
lab in 2007. A proposed county budget included funding not only for the
lab, but also for prosecutors and public defenders training in DNA
technology. Nebraska recently passed a bill to include felony robbery
and burglary convictions among those requiring DNA samples. Wisconsin
is considering a bill to add some misdemeanor-related sex crimes to its
DNA-collection requirements.
But with such expansions come concerns. Mr. Saloom of the Innocence
Project objects to law-enforcement agencies holding the DNA of innocent
people, especially those who merely cooperated with an investigation.
These samples should be destroyed, he says. "The fundamental values of
government accountability and personal privacy are at stake," he says.
Some of these arguments resonate with Assemblyman Joseph Lentol (D),
chairman of the Assembly Codes Committee, which deals with criminal
sanctions. "We are asking [DNA labs] to destroy the DNA of an innocent
party," says Mr. Lentol. "This is a privacy issue."
Parker, the director of criminal justice for the state, says
cooperating individuals can ask a judge to order their samples to be
returned. "The burden is on the police to always demonstrate to a judge
that whatever evidence they are collecting, whether it's a DNA
fingerprint or a photograph or a handwriting sample, that it has been
collected lawfully and that it's being used for a lawful purpose," he
says.
In addition, Assemblyman Lentol also worries that private labs will use
DNA information for commercial gain. "There is an almost limitless
possibility of ID theft," he worries.
That concern is addressed in the pending legislation, Parker says, by
increasing the penalty for unlawful use of a DNA sample.
The governor and lawmakers have until the end of the legislative
session, June 22, to come to terms on the proposal.