The danger of ever-expanding DNA databases
South Carolina recently passed a law which allows law enforcement to collect DNA samples from persons who have been arrested for felonies and some misdemeanors, regardless of whether they are convicted or not. This is a growing trend, mirrored by the federal government and many other states. Recently, in a hopeful reverse of this trend, the European Court of Human Rights held that DNA samples taken from innocent persons could not be held in a database for government use.
An article yesterday in the LA Times highlights the dangers of ever-expanding DNA databases and the fact that mistakes are made. These mistakes will become more and more common as the size of the database increases exponentially, leading to more and more persons accused of crimes they did not commit.
In 2004, a New Jersey prosecutor announced that DNA had solved the mystery of who killed Jane Durrua, an eighth-grader who was raped, beaten and strangled 36 years earlier."Through DNA, we put a face to the killer of Jane Durrua, and that face belongs to Jerry Bellamy," prosecutor John Kaye said.
The killer, however, turned out to be someone else.
Two years after Bellamy's arrest, investigators discovered that evidence from the murder scene had been contaminated by DNA from Bellamy, whose genetic sample was being tested at the same lab in an unrelated case. He was freed. Another man ultimately was arrested in the killing but died before trial.
DNA has proved itself by far the most effective and reliable forensic science. Over the last two decades, it has solved crimes once thought unsolvable, brought elusive murderers and rapists to justice years after their misdeeds and exonerated the innocent. In courtrooms and in the popular imagination, it is often seen as unassailable.
The FBI's national database currently contains 6.4 million profiles, and it is predicted that it will add 1.3 million each year. Cross-contamination is the leading source of error in DNA analysis, and has led to the wrong persons being accused.
I'm not disputing that the evolving science of DNA analysis is incredibly useful and can be undeniably accurate in some instances, my issue is with the creeping growth of the collection of DNA for inclusion in databases. We have progressed from taking DNA samples from convicted felons who serve time in prison, to taking DNA samples from convicted felons serving probationary sentences, to taking DNA samples upon a person's arrest. I have no doubt that ultimately, they would like to have a DNA sample from every living person in the country, and we are getting there one small step at a time.
We need to realize that DNA analysis is not a perfect science, that errors do result in wrongful accusations and even wrongful convictions, and that the larger the databases grow, the greater the possibility of errors. The difference is going to be that mine, yours, and our legislators' DNA samples are going to be in the mix at some point, not just those "other people" who have been convicted of crimes.
