Ethical Pros and Cons of Criminal DNA Databanks

Introduction

DNA banking of criminal information is a source of controversy among many human rights activists. According to available statistics, criminal DNA databanks offer an effective means of controlling crime. Genetic information on criminals is being collected and stored in many states as a means of identifying current and future offenders. Statistics support the notion that collecting DNA information on criminals helps reduce crime. For example, the Division of Forensic Science has managed an average of 37 "hits" per month — where a "hit" refers to a situation in which DNA analysis of a crime scene results in a suspect match from a previously convicted offender and a subsequent arrest (DCJS, 2004). In Virginia, the DNA databank contains records on more than 200,000 criminals (DCJS, 2004).

Proponents of DNA banks argue that DNA identifying information should be collected from larger segments of the population to better control crime. Currently, DNA is collected only on an individual basis, from subjects suspected of committing a crime or already proven to be criminals. Opponents of DNA bank legislation, however, argue that the mass collection of genetic material violates an individual's constitutional right to privacy. Collecting DNA information without just cause is considered an unreasonable search and seizure by opponents. Additionally, opponents argue that information related to an individual's genetic makeup is being disseminated to persons designated as "authorized" solely by state officials, who are not subject to sufficient scrutiny or the controls necessary to protect individual privacy. These issues are discussed in greater detail below.

Value Conflicts

The state of Virginia argues that the databank should not be limited to violent offenders alone. According to statistics gathered by the Division of Forensic Scientists, more than 81% of hits "would have been missed if the Databank was limited to only violent offenders" (DCJS, 2004). Additionally, 35% of violent crimes resolved through the databank were committed by individuals who had previously committed property crimes (DCJS, 2004). DNA databanks are therefore concluded to be most effective only when they include all felons across all case types, not simply violent criminals.

DNA evidence has "revolutionized" the justice system, allowing authorities to compile a "genetic encyclopedia" of criminals for potential future use and identification by law enforcement officials (NPR, 2002). Those in support of DNA technology advocate testing all convicted criminals to establish a comprehensive databank, so that law enforcement agents are better equipped to fight crime in the future (NPR, 2002). Opponents, however, argue that criminal DNA banking is a violation of privacy that could result in discrimination against reformed criminals at a later date (NPR, 2002).

Opponents of DNA banking raise a legitimate concern: the Fourth Amendment protects the right "of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" (NPR, 2002) — unless probable cause exists. Advocates of DNA databanks may counter that criminals forfeit certain privacy rights when they commit a crime in the first place.

Proponents have also argued that DNA samples should be collected from entire segments of the population to enhance crime scene analysis and prevention. From a criminal law perspective, collecting DNA samples from criminals is not much different from collecting an individual's fingerprint (Escanaba, 1998). Collecting DNA samples from a broader segment of the population — such as an entire class of felons — may, however, questionably violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure (Escanaba, 1998). One may argue that collecting such samples from large populations would be done without probable cause (Escanaba, 1998). State and federal law officials nonetheless continue to seek the authority to collect samples based on the idea that an individual might commit a crime (Escanaba, 1998).

Conclusion

DNA banking may prove an invaluable resource to law officials. Collection of genetic information on violent criminals has proven an adequate resource for preventing crime and apprehending criminals thus far. However, the collection of DNA information on large segments of "suspected" potential criminals violates individuals' rights to privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore, the collection and dissemination of genetic information without strict controls and guidelines further compromises an individual's right to privacy.

An adequate solution would be to allow DNA banks to continue collecting information on individuals who have committed specific crimes. The criteria for collecting information must first be more clearly defined, and an authorization and consent process should be established to protect individuals' right to privacy and to prevent the potential for discrimination.

The future of DNA banking remains uncertain. Like fingerprinting, DNA banking may provide an invaluable tool for investigative authorities. However, no tool is useful without controls and limitations. A criminal does indeed forfeit certain rights and is therefore subject to extensive screening and perhaps "banking." However, the severity of the crime committed should be taken into consideration. There is no reason to permanently mark a person and subject them to discrimination for a petty crime. Authorities should work toward devising more stringent criteria for collecting and disseminating DNA information.

A more formal approach to authorizing the release of information must be established to ensure that any person's constitutional right to privacy is not violated. Care must also be taken to ensure that genetic sampling does not go too far — marking individuals who are perceived as having a genetic "tendency" toward violent crime even if they have not committed any offense.

DCJS — Department of Criminal Justice Services — DNA Databank Statistics (2004). Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://www.dcjs.org/forensic/information/dna.cfm?menuLevel=1

Escanaba, Thomas L. "Strands of Justice: Do DNA databanks infringe on defendants' rights?" February 1998. Retrieved February 6, 2004, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/july98/dna_databanks02.html

Fridell, Ron. DNA Fingerprinting: The Ultimate Identity. New York: Franklin Watts, 2001.

NPR. "DNA Databanks." Justice Talking, NPR, July 2002. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from

Rothstein, Mark. Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era. Yale University Press, 1997.