GENETIC IDENTIFICATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION
Greg Yurevitch and Shane Quigley
Genetic Identification Overview
An officer responds to a radio transmission of an attempted burglary in progress. Once at the scene, the officer finds a hysterical Mrs. Nielsen, an 80-year-old grandmother, who was terrified to hear a burglar breaking into her house through a window. After the crime scene is secured, the officer starts his investigation. He finds that the culprit broke the window and cut himself, leaving a blood sample. This is the vital evidence that the officer needs to solve the case. After a quick trip to his car to obtain his standard issue identifier, a computer device similar to a PDA, he takes a sample of the blood. Once he analyzes the DNA, he connects to a database to verify its owner. Finally, after talking to Mrs. Nielsen and calming her down, the identifier informs the official that a match has been found. The criminal is identified as James Reynolds, a 25-year-old male that lives just a few houses away. The identifier also informs the officer that the Mr. Reynolds’s sentence would be one year in a federal minimum-security prison, with two years parole after the sentence has been served. The officer then arrests James Reynolds and takes him to jail, where he will be transferred to prison in the morning to server the remainder of his sentence.
How far off is a situation like this from happening? Could DNA identification revolutionize the justice system, disbanding courts, judges, and juries to create a more efficient system based purely on the collection of evidence at the scene of the crime? It will only be a matter of time before courts rely heavily on DNA evidence and genetic identification to solve crimes. How long will it take for this to be the only factor in determining whether or not a person is innocent or guilty? This future is possible with genetic identification.
Genetic identification is the verification of someone’s identity on the basis of a DNA signature. In 1985, a British scientist, Alex Jeffreys, discovered the method of identifying people genetically through DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a molecule at the core of each living cell (Jacot, 2004). This type of biometric identification is based on the differences of DNA sequences and is a unique identifier in everyone except twins.
About 10 percent of DNA contains chromosomes… and is partially made up of identical sequences. It is these ‘repeat units’ that are analyzed to compile a person’s genetic profile, which takes the form of a series of figures. These data are like bar codes, which can be easily stored as a computer file (Jacot, 2004).
This datum can then be used to identify the odds and probability of a match to these repeating sequences.
DNA identification, in short, is complicated. The amount of information needed for the process is immense and collection is prone to human error. Despite having studied DNA for over 50 years, scientists still have much to learn regarding what we are dealing with before it will be a completely voluble identification method.
Problems with classification are one of the main reasons why DNA identification is not the concrete evidence prosecutors hoped it would be. Telling the jury the odds that a man is not guilty are 1 in 9.5 trillion means nothing to them, nor should it considering the world population is just over 6 billion. A number 1600 times the size of the actual possible odds is worthless in court. These astronomical odds are derived from “multiplying DNA test results together by the multiplication or product rule” (Asplen, 2004). Asplen used the OJ Simpson case as an example of how this is done. Below are the probabilities of an allele match in each instance where blood was taken from the crime scene. The last entry shows how the product rule would work in this instance:
Table 1. Allele Probabilities
Allele match with blood on sidewalk
Allele match with blood on driveway
Allele match with blood on gate
Allele match with blood in Bronco
Allele match with blood on glove
Overall probability based on product rule
“What you need are population databases which act as an ’ethnic ceiling‘ on those astronomical or infinitesimal odds” (Asplen 2004). Ethnic ceilings are determined by taking groups of “subpopulations” and finding the number of times an allele appears in the group (Aspen 2004). Such a database would sizably reduce the odds from 1:9.5 trillion to 1:16,000 – 40,000. Such numbers are much more comprehensible and interpretable than the previous, and will create stronger evidence in court cases.
Furthermore, human error has been a favorite argument of the defense and has never been more prevalent than in DNA evidence, where the potential for error is huge. Each step in the process and each tool used can be an avenue for the defense to pursue with regards to errors made. These consist of “cross-contamination, environmental insult, mixed samples, partial digestion, glassware cleaning, lead contamination, machine cool down, protective clothing, storage space, and ventilation systems” (O’Connor, 2004). Each of these can be attacked by the defense to discount DNA evidence. Despite the issues concerning the potential contamination and mishandling of DNA, as well as the astronomical odds brought to bear in court, jurors seem to favor statistical information to “regular” evidence.
In terms of the actual process of identification, there are at least five different ways to DNA type: “RFLP, PCR, STR, Mitochondrial DNA, and Rapid DNA ID Microchip-Based Genetic Detectors” (O’Connor, 2004). In addition, there are at least three methods of allele frequency calculation, which “count individuals in the population, count alleles in the population or use genotype frequencies” (O’Connor, 2004). The definitions do not matter; the point is that each of these methods may produce a different result.
“For the most part, the actual technology of DNA typing is considered unquestionably sound and reliable by the scientific community and the courts” (O’Connor, 2004). However, the science is so new that there are no guidelines prescribed to the DNA matching process and each process has its own problems associated with it. Jurors are bombarded with an immense amount of complex data which they should dismiss as they do not understand it. Yet, jurors prefer statistical information, which is why the defense does everything it can to prevent statistics from being introduced during the trial. Greater understanding and regulation of DNA “fingerprinting” must be realized before this science should become an actual method of incrimination.
Today, judicial and law enforcement organizations accept DNA testing as an accurate science, yet there are possibilities (though extremely low) that it could identify the wrong person. This should be a concern when considering that genetic identification is already in use today, such as with paternity, relationship, twin zygosity, forensic, and crime scene DNA testing.
This type of identification gets more controversial as many countries push to expand their DNA databases so that probable identification can be made from genetic material that humans leave behind. This type of technology introduces serious privacy issues to society, and must be examined and questioned before privacy is completely compromised. A recent collaboration found that when the size of DNA databases increase, so does the chance for misidentification (Privacy, 2004). How would a person disprove the identification of genetic material found at a crime scene? Would our current legal system account for the possibility of misidentification? Is probability of identification conclusive enough to convict people of crimes? This problem reaches even further since society, in general, considers DNA and genetic testing to be foolproof, when, in fact, it is not a completely accurate science. In fact, human error increases the chance of misidentification.
The identification of a person by the examination of genetic material can incriminate or prove them innocent. Only since fingerprinting evolved has there been a technology that has had such an influence on society. The difference between fingerprinting and genetic identification is that the layperson understands how fingerprinting works and knows the benefits and downfalls this technique potentially represents. However, the layperson does not understand all of these aspects as they relate to genetic identification. Instead, people view DNA analysis as an exact science. Through this correlation, they assume that such analysis is infallible. This is extremely troubling when so much is riding on the identification of an individual by this process, the related issues of privacy, and the individual liberties that genetic identification involves. Nowhere else in society do these aspects appear more blatantly than in Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) and forensic science.
Genetic Identification in Crime Scene Investigation
Lieutenant O’Hara of the CSI team stepped onto the scene of a triple homicide at a local dance club. Witnesses said two perpetrators had entered the club wearing black-hooded sweatshirts. Their features and body types were not captured on the dance club’s security videos because they had their hoods up and were wearing baggy clothing. No one noticed them hanging out in the back of the club, until they fired semi-automatic weapons into the crowd, hitting two males and one female with over 30 bullets. The suspects then vanished in the resulting chaos that they had created.
The detectives were unsure that Lieutenant O’Hara could solve this case, but 10 minutes was all that was needed to gather the vital evidence. His first move was to review the security tapes on the dance floor. O’Hara noticed that one of the suspects had a drink. This was the detail that the other detectives overlooked. O’Hara immediately went to the bar to recover the same cup that the suspect had used. Unfortunately for the suspects, the glass was still in the exact same position. The Lieutenant just had to take samples of the saliva residue along the rim of the glass to obtain the suspect’s DNA. Six hours later the CSI lab had the DNA analyzed and processed it against the FBI’s genetic database holding the DNA of violent criminals and sexual assaulters. Another fifteen minutes and the computer searching the database came up with a match that is 99.2% correct. The perpetrator was positively identified and arrested later that night. His accomplice was picked up later that week after his frien d identified him in an attempt to make a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.
This is a fictitious story where CSI made a substantial difference in solving a crime and capturing criminals. This is a good example of the benefits CSI and genetic identification can contribute to society. But to fully understand how genetic identification could benefit or harms society, we need to further explore its applications in this field.
CSI has evolved into an exact science and methodology over the past decades as criminals have become more intelligent and devious in their crimes. As science progresses, new technologies become available to forensic scientists and crime scene investigators. DNA identification is nothing short of a miracle for CSI, yet using DNA identification, as the sole method of incrimination is shortsighted and unfair.
Not everyone can be a CSI, as the training is intensive and not for the weak at heart. The prerequisites depend on where you are applying and whether you want to become a CSI for the FBI or for a local law enforcement agency. The following are the highest prerequisites necessary: a four year degree in science or a criminal justice degree, previous involvement with law enforcement, as well as:
…a minimum of 720 hours training in crime scene processing with a minimum of 80 hours training in latent fingerprint processing, 40 hours in major death investigation, 40 hours in advanced death investigations, 40 hours in photography, 40 hours in blood spatter interpretation and other training courses in arson investigation and forensic pathology. In addition, the crime scene investigator must be certified by the International Association for Identification, Crime Scene Certification Board, within 18 months as a crime scene investigator (ICSIA, 2004).
Such specialization is necessary as CS investigators are called onto crime scenes where normal detective’s investigations have come to a stand still. The attention to detail is learned through hours of experience, and continued education is always necessary. They must always be aware and take into account the development and incorporation of new technologies such as DNA identification. Intensive training is essential, as these investigators are specialists and their word is used as evidence in a court of law. Any flaw, mistake, or neglect on their part could very well jeopardize a case against a killer, as well as their career as a specialist. It is an intense job that requires one to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It does not matter what time of day or night, if they have been working three shifts, or if there is a blizzard outside. A CSI agent could be called fifteen minutes before sitting down to Christmas dinner to examine a triple homicide. They are almost like postal workers, “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds” (USPS, 2004). The amount of knowledge, training, experience, thought, effort, endurance, imagination, alertness, caution, prudence, judgment, thoroughness and precision that CS investigators have is respectable at the least and just goes to show why they are such valued specialists.
With the advent and progression of DNA identification, local law enforcement officers have the opportunity to investigate crimes that were previously restricted to specialized forensic scientists or CS investigators. There are even codes that police officers are taught pertaining to DNA evidence, such as what types of evidence can be left behind (e.g. saliva, sweat, skin, hair, muscle tissue, semen, blood, and urine), what items DNA evidence is usually left on (e.g. baseball bats, combs, toothpicks, cigarettes, eyeglasses, stamps, bottles, bite mark, or hats), how to go about retrieving the DNA sample without contamination, and making sure the scene is secure so that it will not contaminate the evidence for the CSI. The advent of local law enforcement agencies taking it upon themselves to do their own DNA identification shows just how far such methods have come since its inception in 1985.
CSI involves reconstructing the crime through logical interpretations of available evidence. As stated previously, a lot of education and experience are necessary. Such education is required since everything at a crime scene could be potential evidence, leading to the apprehension and conviction of a criminal. A CSI must never assume anything until all possible evidence is collected, analyzed and logged. Photographs, physical evidence (e.g. DNA evidence, evidence of forcing a lock, breaking the door, or a foot print in the backyard), and testimony must all be taken into account to come up with the most accurate depiction of what had transpired. If the crime scene is tampered with in any way, be it by the perpetrator to throw off the investigator, the victim afterwards, or mistakenly by the police, the reconstruction of the crime will be flawed and could damage the prosecution’s case against a societal menace.
Through every step of reconstructing the crime scene, the examiner must take into account that they will be called to testify in court as an expert witness in the matter. They must take every precaution to ensure that the crime scene is not tampered with and that evidence samples are not contaminated. Any contamination will sow the seeds of doubt in the jurors’ eyes and must be avoided at all costs, thus leading to the intensity of the investigators’ jobs:
A crime scene investigator may be called to a crime scene 15 minutes before Thanksgiving dinner or just as the kids start to open their Christmas presents. It isn't unusual for the call to come after the crime scene technician is asleep in bed, sometimes after having worked a 12-hour day But just because the crime scene investigator hasn't slept in 24 hours is no reason for missing an item of evidence or for under working a crime scene. So it may be "just a burglary"? That burglary is just as important to the investigating agency as is any other case. The victim deserves the best investigative efforts possible, regardless of the type of crime under investigation (Baldwin, 2004).
Such specialization is considered a necessity now that DNA evidence in on the scene in many cases. This training is important because so many things can go wrong between locating foreign DNA evidence, collecting it, transferring it to the test sight, and even potentially in the preservation and testing of such samples.
DNA identification outside of CSI has been incredibly useful and has proven to be “life-saving” in many situations. Identification can not only be used in catching a suspect but also to exonerate an innocent person:
In 1996, Gerald Parker—then in a California prison on a parole violation stemming from a 1980 sentence for raping a child—was charged with the rapes and murders of five women between December 1978 and October 1979 and the murder of a fetus during a rape in 1980. DNA samples from the crime scenes were run through California's sexual assault/violent offenders database, and four of the cases were found to have been committed by the same perpetrator. After DNA tests linked Parker to the victims, he confessed to the crimes. He also confessed to a similar, fifth crime for which Kevin Lee Green had been wrongly convicted and had served 16 years in prison (NIJ, 2004).
In addition to this story, “to date, more than 85 people in the United States have been exonerated through post-conviction DNA testing; 10 of them had been on death row” (Ferrara, 2001). These people were wrongfully convicted and some have spent a good portion of their life in prison. Not since fingerprinting, has a technology been able to affect people in such a dichotomous way. Genetic identification can be used to convict a person or set them free. DNA identification is an extremely useful tool that should be used to the fullest extent, as it saves lives both by putting criminals behind bars and by freeing the innocent. There are issues that are now being revealed, that must be addressed, as this science is rapidly being fully integrated into our criminal investigation procedures.
Crime Scene Investigation: Concerns
Juries think science is so absolute that DNA evidence is without question,’ says Charles Leonard, a partner at Tremper, Bechert & Leonard in Fort Wayne, Ind., and a court-appointed defender in Indiana v. Hopkins, the third case involving DNA evidence ever tried in the country. A woman had been raped and murdered; police fingered Leonard's client. The evidence produced was weak, however, and the jury was unconvinced, according to Leonard. Then the prosecutor ordered DNA tests, the judge admitted the results, ‘and the guy was convicted, like that (Fischetti, 2004).
The story above paints a grim picture, where DNA recovery took precedence over the cultivation of a motive. Fingerprints, and murder weapons, in conjunction with a motive, are strong enough evidence to convict a criminal. Yet, this evidence had not convinced the jury. Before the advent of DNA identification, CSI looked at every piece of evidence with an analytical mind, trying to build a picture of the case. Everything was a potential piece of evidence: a slight indentation in the wall, coupled with a scruff mark on the floor could paint the picture of a fight between two individuals; the blood mark on the lamp in the second room upstairs indicated that the lamp was used to crush the victim’s skull, while a slightly discolored dishrag was used to clean the perpetrator’s hands.
DNA test results, first allowed as evidence in 1990, are changing the criminal justice system, but not always for the better. Reliance on DNA typing risks perpetrating injustice by focusing an entire case on physical evidence, downplaying fundamental aspects of a trial: motive, the quality of police work, the presumption of innocence, and considerations of reasonable doubt (Fischetti, 2004).
While CS investigators still look at all the evidence, much of the focus has shifted to foreign DNA recovery. This shift in priority came with the fact that juries lap up statistical evidence with fervor. They view DNA evidence as infallible. Measures have been implemented to curb the potential failings in DNA typing; however, nothing is ever perfect. Nor should one single piece of evidence be used as the sole basis for a case. While physical evidence is very incriminating, motive and other proven factors should always play a part in the judicial system.
DNA identification is not a foolproof science despite what some think. “From the point of view of a forensic scientist, it is evident that neither wrong typing results nor misuse of the stored DNA data is possible under the very secure precautions now taken” (Benecke). It is true that DNA typing results are repeated multiple times by different people to reduce the potential for misidentification, yet nothing is ever perfect and free from human error. Humans are intrinsically flawed and so are their methods. A person should not put all their trust in a single form of identification.
What happens when genetic material is left at a crime scene, but not while the crime was committed? Not all genetic material at a crime scene needs to be analyzed, just the evidence that is pertinent to the identification of a suspect. By analyzing only material that is explicitly related to the crime, the community can protect the privacy and rights of a greater number of individuals. At the same time, how does one classify genetic evidence as non-related? Just as photo radar has been theoretically correlated to create an increase in divorce rates, the use of genetic identification to place individuals at certain locations and making this information public knowledge could adversely affect an individual’s life. Just imagine linking a person’s spouse to being at sleazy strip club, where someone was recently murdered. This information would not only negatively affect this individual’s life and marriage, but also would violate their right to privacy when this information becomes public knowledge. An individual should not have to worry about leaving a genetic trail everywhere he or she goes. One already is starting to feel the intrusiveness of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), so imagine how much worse it can be with DNA.
The use of genetic identification in CSI and forensic science is taking away from the American ideals of being innocent until proven guilty. No longer will an individual be innocent until they are proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. If a suspect in a DNA evidence case refuses to give his or her DNA to compare to the sample found at a crime scene, many will consider this behavior to be incriminating. If they were really innocent, then they would have nothing to hide. This perception is changing American ideals towards creating a new structure of having suspects be guilty until it is proven that they are not.
Genetic Identification Ethical Analysis
Genetic Identification brings forth many ethical questions on how this technology should be applied in our lives. This is a complicated issue that is not cut and dry, as it has both advantages and disadvantages that apply to many areas of our society. It affects the individual and the community, in both the short and long term. Also, it does not help that this type of identification has many privacy concerns.
DNA identification pits individual rights against those of the community as a whole. For example, is it acceptable for an individual to give up their privacy and anonymity in order to identify and capture a criminal to make the community safer? It is perfectly ethical if the individual chooses to give their DNA for analysis, but what happens when it is taken or they are forced to give genetic material? What kind of deciding factors would it take for the community to override an individual’s rights? On the other hand, is it right that the community be unsafe and have a criminal at large to protect a few people’s rights to privacy and choice? Should society be held captive to fear and potential chaos for the benefit of individual rights? This issue is not clear-cut and does not have a right or wrong answer. It can be confusing, especially when values conflict and oppose each other. A person raised in the U.S. is often taught conflicting moral values. A person is taught the importance of individual rights, but is also taught that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Both of these values are ingrained in the average U.S. citizen, but at what point do we quantify breaching an individual’s right to privacy? Also keep in mind that once a freedom is taken away for the sake of security, it is almost impossible to give or get it back. Once precedence is in place, further breaches of privacy are much easier to come by. Where does it stop?
Genetic identification is an issue that will not only affect humans in the short-term, but also in the long-term. Ends based thinking applies utilitarian thought to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Keeping this in perspective, we cannot lean towards either the short-term or the long-term, but must compromise to find the best solution that maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Yet, there will always be a minority who do not benefit and can be harmed by the repercussions caused by this type of justification. A controversial example involves HIV and AIDS. If today, everyone with AIDS and HIV were killed, then we would no longer have to deal with this disease. What would happen to those who didn’t want to give up their privacy? Who would take such responsibility for these minorities? The goal of maximizing the good for the greatest amount of people is appealing in theory, yet what happens when you are part of that minority?
Rule-based thinking and deontological ethics use a single set of rules to define what is right for everyone. Applying the same set of rules to everyone creates fairness and equality. Everyone would give up the same amount of privacy and this would be “right.” Do the individuals who give up their privacy have a choice in making these rules? What happens when one rule is not completely applicable or all encompassing? And how does society account for the outcomes of each event with universal laws? A bigger question deals with who would create these all encompassing “laws” and how would they be enforced? Cultural differences, coupled with different religious beliefs would deny such a potential application as everyone’s idea of utopia is different. Religion is an all-pervasive subject in the world today whether you believe in God or not, and which God you believe in. What rule could possibly encompass everything that religion and atheism have to offer and still keep everyone happy? The fact of the matter is that while the simplicity of such a concept is appealing, the diversity in the world negates the possibility of its fair implementation for all.
Care-based thinking applies the Golden Rule;, i.e. treat others as you would want to be treated. This utilizes reversibility and attempts to get people to change their perspectives and see the multiple sides that exist within every issue. What of the differences in individual morals and values? Every person does not treat everyone else the same. What about people who might actually want to be treated poorly? Does this allow them to treat everyone else in this manner? Just because a single person does not care about privacy or ethics does not mean that another person feels the same way. This basis of thinking is morally sound, at least for the advancement of goodness and kindness. Unfortunately, when the opposite end of the spectrum is brought to light, in terms of being rude and mean, the Golden Rule comes up short. Also, how would the Golden Rule apply to CSI and DNA identification? If people who value their safety want to catch a criminal for the safety of others, then they would have to give up their genetic information. But if these same people value their privacy and want others to have privacy, then should they have to give up their DNA? Once again, much like the rule based ideology, the Golden Rule cannot logically be directly correlated to DNA identification and CSI, but the ethical considerations brought to light are still applicable.
Consequential values evaluate an action ethically by the rightness or goodness of its outcome. This type of thinking is solely based on the circumstances and allows a person to use many different types of analysis on a given action or situation (Harper, 1996, p.69). Outcomes are hard to predict, and furthermore, what happens to this type of thinking when potentially harmful outcomes are overlooked or are completely left out of the analysis altogether? This seems to be the best universalized method of thought in the terms that it allows a person to not just base judgment on one set of values or on one line of thought. Yet it comes with the risk of not being able to consider all possible outcomes an event can cause. One cannot completely anticipate the potential issues and problems that will be brought to light with the use of genetic identification and, conversely, the misuse of such a tool. As such, it is more of an ongoing process that should be followed by all to make sure that different viewpoints are brought to light, therefore minimizing the potential disasters.
In terms of disaster, does society owe a debt to those who are wrongfully convicted and are later exonerated through genetic identification? Simply because a person is convicted by a jury of his peers, should society be held responsible for a jury’s decision? The jury took away an innocent person’s freedom and confined them to live in an environment with hardened criminals. This type of situation can be a living hell on an innocent person’s soul, knowing that they didn’t commit the crime, but they are paying for it as if they had. The time that has been taken away from them needs to be compensated for and the individuals name and status needs to be renewed and reestablished. While monetary compensation cannot compare to the time taken from them, it is, unfortunately, the best that society can offer. The judicial system is a flawed system created by a flawed species.
Is it right for investigators to utilize genetic evidence because it is there? Just because people leave their DNA behind does not give others the right to analyze it. An individual cannot reasonably prevent their DNA from being left behind and it is not sensible to make the individual responsible for their genetic material, whether it is still a part of them or a stray hair that landed on the street on a windy day. It is the duty of society as a whole to protect everyone’s individual right to genetic privacy by limiting the analysis of genetic material. This can, and needs to be, regulated in society to develop privacy standards that will protect individuals, thus benefiting society as a whole. To what extent society and the community limits this invasion of privacy will become a big issue in the near future. They need to identify and allow the use of genetic analysis in situations that will benefit the greatest number of people, without causing complete loss of privacy and rights to the individual. By creating rules that are situationally based, this can be accomplished and still maintain this delicate balance.
The trade-offs between the apprehension of criminals and the privacy of an individual must be evaluated. At what point is it worth violating an individual’s privacy to apprehend a criminal? Consequential values need to be utilized in each situation, allowing multiple sets of values, morals, and ways of thinking to be applied. By using these aspects, society can evaluate each situation individually and find when it is most appropriate to invade an individual’s privacy, if it is ever appropriate at all. Society should not use strictly rule based thinking to make universal laws that will govern all scenarios that may occur. It would be extremely difficult to make such laws and, even if society could, it should not limit itself in ways to deal with a variety of different situations.
Consequential values are the best universalized method of thought, which allows a person to not just base judgment on one set of values or one line of thought, but can utilize many types of thinking, analysis, and morals for any given situation or action. This allows flexibility and adaptability in each situation, which promotes the best ethical result for each individual situation, while also creating a structure that can be built upon as our world continues to change.
All of these ethical considerations and the potential interpretations of situations concerning CSI and DNA identification involve everyone. Genetic identification used under appropriate legislation will help decrease the amount of wrongfully convicted criminals and free those who are truly innocent. This will harness the benefits of this new technology and simultaneously place checks and balances in our judicial system. Every person should have a say as to how these situations can or will be dealt with in the future. The key to making the “correct” decision is by being educated and informed. Through individual thought and interactions with others concerning DNA identification, ideas will be presented that could very well define the future legislation that will protect our privacy as well as that of our children.
Asplen, Chris. “DNA Typing and Identification.” At: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect15.htm. Accessed on 10/18/2004.
Baldwin, Hayden B. “The Crime Scene Investigator.” At: http://www.feinc.net/csi.htm. Accessed on 11/02/2004.
Benecke, Mark. “DNA typing in forensic medicine and in criminal investigations: a current survey.” At: http://www.benecke.com/natwiss.pdf. Accessed on 11/01/2004.
Devore, David. “Genetic Screening and Ethics: An Overview.” At: http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1992/gen_screen1.html. Accessed on 10/06/2004.
Ferrara et al. “How DNA Technology Is Reshaping Judicial Process and Outcome.” At: http://www.CSinvestigators.org/tech/Biotech/nbpp/Seminar2Brief.htm. May 2001. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Washington, DC.
Fischetti, Mark. “DNA as a forensic instrument.” At: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.3/dna-forensic.html. Accessed on 11/01/2004.
Harper et al. “How We Profess: The Ethical Systems analyst.” Communications of the ACM. March 1996: 69-77.
(ICSIA) International Crime Scene Investigators Association. “Crime Scene Investigator.” At: http://www.feinc.net/csi-desc.htm. Accessed on 11/02/2004.
Jacot, Martine. “DNA In The Dock - genetic fingerprinting and human rights.” At: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/ is_2000_April/ai_62382655. Accessed on 10/06/2004.
(NIJ) National Institute of Justice. “What Every Law Enforcement Officer Should Know About DNA Evidence.” September 1999. At: http://www.ncjrs.org/nij/DNAbro/intro.html. Accessed: 11/01/2004.
O’Connor, Thomas. “DNA Typing and Identification.” At: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect15.htm. Accessed on 10/04/2004.
“Privacy on Human Rights 2003: Threats to Privacy.” At: http://pi.gn.apc.org/survey/phr2003/threats.htm. p. 14, 43-44 Accessed on 8/31/2004.
(USPS) United States Postal Service. “Postal Services To Continue Following Transfer Of Postal Facility Bearing 'Neither Snow, Nor Rain Nor Heat...' Inscription.” At: http://www.usps.com/ news/2002/press/pr02_076.htm. Accessed on 11/02/2004.
Back to Top