COUNTERBLAST: Prosecuting Science: The Rational Defence of Mandatory DNA Databases

Abstract

The use of DNA samples by the criminal justice system may be a relatively new phenomenon, but the contours of the ethical debate surrounding it are certainly not. The controversy regarding the collection and storage of genetic material finds itself resorting to the 40-year-old dichotomy of crime control versus due process (Packer 1968). Is it better to have ‘genetic privacy’ or higher clearance rates? And, of equal importance, at what point should DNA be collected from an individual? As the offender-based National DNA Data Bank (NDNAD) (2008) now stands, its true value lies in its ability to solve cold cases (Wallace 2006). This is primarily because profiles are successfully loaded and identified only if the opportunity to collect presents itself, both practically and legally speaking. If all UK citizens gave DNA samples at birth, however, the focus of the database could shift to ongoing investigations, as incoming profiles would almost certainly produce a match. But before the kneejerk retorts of Orwellian states and Big Brother begin flying, one should consider the benefits of mandatory sampling. Those familiar with the literature understand that a small percentage of people will be responsible for a large percentage of crime. Collecting the DNA of these individuals, then, is likely to be of great value. But identifying who will be an ‘adolescence-limited’ offender and who will be a career criminal is, obviously, problematic. A universal database resolves contentious issues ‐ already ripe in the UK and elsewhere ‐ of whom, when, for what, and how long samples should be taken and kept. A compulsory database that collects an individual’s DNA at birth, rather than at the first point of contact with the criminal justice system, also maximises efficiency. Already, evidence that criminality tends to ‘run in the family’ suggests that having even a relative on the database would increase current detection rates, by as much as 40% (Bieber, Brenner and Lazer 2006). With about 7% of the UK population on its database, there is a 45% chance a new crime-scene profile will match an existing one (Parliamentary