DNA identification methods are such an established part of our law enforcement and criminal justice systems it is hard to believe that the technologies were developed as recently as the mid-1980s, and that the databases of law enforcement profiles were established in the 1990s. Although the first databases were limited to the DNA profiles of convicted rapists and murderers, the success of these databases in solving violent crimes provided the impetus for Congress and state legislatures to expand the scope of the databases with little critical examination of each expansion's value to law enforcement or cost to privacy and civil liberties.

We are now entering a new stage of DNA forensics, in which successive database expansions over the last decade have raised the possibility of creating a population-wide repository. In addition, new applications of DNA profiling, including familial and low stringency searches, have been added to DNA dragnets, the use of medical samples for forensic analysis, and other measures to create a series of crucial, yet largely unexplored, second-generation legal and policy issues.

In the past twenty years, advances in forensic DNA technology have revolutionized the American criminal justice system. The use of forensic DNA testing in America began in 1987, and its demonstrated scientific accuracy quickly led jurisdictions to accept expert testimony regarding DNA matches between suspects and crime scene evidence. Wielding the power to exonerate the innocent and apprehend the guilty, the use of DNA identification technology has become an indispensable resource for prosecutors and law enforcement officials, as well as for defense lawyers representing persons falsely accused or wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. As states began to compile DNA profiles from convicted offenders, the need for a repository for these profiles resulted in the DNA database.

Originally, DNA databases included only “those classes of offenders with a high recidivism rate, such as sex offenders and violent felons.” Recognizing the crime-solving potential of this technology, state legislatures soon began to expand the scope of DNA database statutes to include broader classes of offenders.

For years, the collection of DNA samples from individuals arrested for criminal misconduct has been advocated by police officials and endorsed by politicians. Louisiana, Virginia, California, and South Dakota have adopted laws to add DNA profiles derived from these samples to their DNA databases. Texas provides for DNA to be taken after indictment but before conviction. Although the U.S. Department of Justice initially shied away from the issue, the DNA Fingerprint Act of 20055 authorizes the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for violations of certain federal criminal laws, and the inclusion in the national DNA database of all profiles from states that type DNA prior to conviction.

But are these laws constitutional? In an article in a previous issue of this journal, and reprinted in this issue, Professor Tracey Maclin concludes that fidelity to precedent should lead the Supreme Court to strike down the Louisiana and Virginia laws as violations of the Fourth Amendment.

On November 2, 2004, California voters approved Proposition 69, “The DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime, and Innocence Protection Act” by a margin of approximately 60 to 40 percent. Given the limited amount of information provided to voters during the initiative process, it is unclear how many of the yea-sayers were apprised of the full implications of this measure. Indeed, by voting “yes” on Proposition 69, California has elected to house the most radical and costly state criminal DNA database in the country. This dangerous expansion of California's database poses tremendous threats to civil liberties and social justice while offering little, if anything, by way of increasing the safety of its citizens.

Prior to November 2, California law required the permanent retention of DNA samples from felons convicted of serious, violent crimes.

This article seeks to outline a viewpoint on the study of the legal, ethical and policy considerations raised by DNA tests and databases (from here on, DNA usages). It does not delve into the specifics involved. It outlines a way of thinking that has proven productive elsewhere1 and seems promising in dealing with DNA usages in the United States, but little more. Given that this essay is about a communitarian approach that draws on specific communitarian values, I turn next to briefly present the approach here followed.

Communitarianism is a social philosophy that maintains that society should articulate what is good, and asserts that such articulations are both necessary and legitimate. Communitarianism is often contrasted with classical liberalism, a philosophical position that holds that individuals should formulate their idea of good on their own. Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good (values) are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced.

Forensic data banks contain biological samples and DNA extracts as well as computerized databases of coded DNA profiles of convicted offenders, arrestees and crime scene samples. When used for investigative and law enforcement purposes, DNA data banks have been successful in providing key investigative leads in hundreds of criminal investigations. A number of these crimes would never have been resolved without use of such data banks. In addition, in some limited number of investigations, the exclusion of known suspects whose DNA profiles are known to be in an offender database can save valuable investigative time.

Despite the above benefits, in hundreds of cases DNA samples are never collected and administrative and laboratory logjams delay prompt database searches. Furthermore, hundreds of DNA database matches (hits) languish, without any followup by law enforcement or prosecutors. These prevent or delay DNA matches and therefore can leave the public in grave risk of potential harm from recidivistic offenders who otherwise could have been apprehended and convicted if the process functioned more effectively.

Current methods of forensic DNA profiling (known also as DNA fingerprinting and DNA typing), based on Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) amplifications of a varying number of Short Tandem Repeat (STR) loci found at different locations on the human genome, are regularly described as constituting the “gold standard for identification” in contemporary society. At a time when criminal justice systems in Europe and North America increasingly seek to utilize the epistemic authority of a variety of sciences in support of the apprehension and prosecution of suspects and offenders, genetic science and recombinant DNA technology are often singled out for particular approbation. Indeed, the development and application of DNA profiling has been widely described as the “greatest breakthrough in forensic science since fingerprinting.”

Just after midnight on March 21, 2003, a drunk stood on a footbridge over a motorway in a village in Surrey in southern England. After eight pints of beer, he was drunk enough to decide to drop a brick from the overpass into traffic to see if he could hit something; unfortunately, he was not so drunk that he missed. The brick crashed through the windshield on the driver's side of a truck. It hit the driver, Michael Little, in the chest, triggering a fatal heart attack. He stayed conscious long enough to pull the truck safely to the side of the road, thereby perhaps saving other motorists; then he died. The crime was widely publicized, as was the driver's role in preventing any further accidents.

Since its origins in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling has become the most powerful tool for identification in contemporary society. Practitioners have deployed it to determine parentage, verify claims to identity in various civil contexts, identify bodies in wars and mass disasters, and infer the identity of individuals who have left biological traces at crime scenes. Thus DNA profiling can be used to implicate or exonerate individuals from participation in particular social relations and activities; this affords it a growing importance in major social institutions such as the family, the criminal justice system, immigration services, and health services. There are key state, security, civil liberty, personal, and commercial considerations surrounding the reliability and social implications of DNA profiling in establishing the identities of “family members,” “claimants,” “customers,” “suspects,” and “citizens.”

Given that DNA profiling is increasingly influential in forensic inquiries, the recently-developed practice in the UK of “familial searching” of DNA databases has the potential to become a significant aspect of investigations.

During the past four years, the International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management has sponsored and co-sponsored a series of discursive roundtables on the ethical, legal, social, and cultural implications of genetic research on Indian tribes and Indian people. The deliberations of the tribal leaders, legal scholars, researchers, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and others who participated in these roundtables laid out a range of barriers to informed tribal participation in genetic research and proposed a policy, legal, and scientific research agenda to fill gaps in knowledge and to otherwise support indigenous peoples' decision-making on genetic research issues.

An understanding of Native American attitudes toward genetic research on their community cannot be fully understood absent an appreciation of the interrelationship among native peoples, genetic research, and the landscape, contaminated as it is by governmental and other factors. The deliberations described herein present invaluable insights into tribal attitudes toward genetic research that have application to ethical, legal and social aspects of forensic DNA databanks, sample collection and retention, and, in particular, issues of secondary non-forensic uses of such DNA.

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the value of scientific evidence – especially when compared to other types of evidence such as eyewitness identifications, confessions, and informant testimony. For example, in Escobedo v. Illinois, the Court observed: “We have learned the lesson of history, ancient and modern, that a system of criminal law enforcement which comes to depend on the –confession— will, in the long run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a system which depends on extrinsic evidence independently secured through skillful investigation.” Similarly, in Davis v. Mississippi, the Court commented:

The emergence of post-conviction DNA testing has had profound effects on the American criminal justice system. Although changes in the formal legal landscape are readily noticeable, the DNA exonerations have also produced other consequences that may have potentially more significance. To comprehend and assess the influence of post-conviction DNA testing one must examine more than just the law on the books. After some introductory material, Part I of this essay looks at repercussions DNA exonerations are having on the basic operation of the criminal justice system, Part II examines new statutes that govern procedures for post-conviction DNA testing requests, and Part III briefly considers how these current developments may affect Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Post-conviction DNA testing has evolved in little more than a decade. Before 2000, only two states, New York and Illinois, had statutes that authorized post-conviction DNA testing. In other jurisdictions, no formally authorized procedures existed that allowed inmates to make requests for DNA testing of crime scene evidence.

“Relying on Science, Romney Files Death Penalty Bill.” With that headline, a press release on April 28, 2005 announced that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was seeking to reintroduce by legislation the death penalty that the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled unconstitutional in 1984. The remainder of the text left little doubt that science was a major basis for the governor's action. The press release quoted Romney as saying that the bill provided a “gold standard for the death penalty in the modern scientific age.” Positing a symmetry that will be questioned below, Romney also declared, “Just as science can free the innocent, it can also identify the guilty.” The bill itself deferred to science by calling for corroborating scientific evidence, multiple layers of review, and a novel “no doubt” standard of proof. By raising the required standard of evidence and by restricting the class of capital crimes, the proposed law hoped to correct the defects of other death penalty statutes.

Combine the following: medicine, ethics, jurisprudence, behavioral genetics, and antisocial behavior (ASB). Given our level of scientific knowledge today, this combination is more akin to a cerebral smorgasbord than to a dinner where starter, entree, wine, and dessert are carefully chosen to complement one another. Hence, any survey of menus must be highly selective. We accept as a given that there is a noteworthy genetic influence on ASB no matter how it is defined. In terms of behavioral research, the magnitude of that genetic influence is substantial, but so is the impact from the environment, broadly defined to include pre-and post-natal, physical (e.g., anoxia, fetal alcohol syndrome, or crack) as well as psychosocial (e.g., quality of parenting, ethnic culture, or religion) elements.

We will discuss some of the major issues raised by this fact of genetic influence that have most applicability to topics usually raised by observers outside of behavioral genetics.

In the trauma surrounding mass disasters, the need to identify victims accurately and as soon as possible is critical. DNA identification testing is increasingly used to identify human bodies and remains where the deceased cannot be identified by traditional means. This form of testing compares DNA taken from the body of the deceased with DNA taken from their personal items (e.g. hairbrush, toothbrush etc.) or from close biological relatives. DNA identification testing was used to identify the victims of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, and of the victims of the Tsunami that hit Asia on December 26, 2004. Shortly after the 9/11 attack, police investigators asked the victims' families for personal items belonging to the missing, and for DNA samples from family members themselves. The New York medical examiner's office coordinated the DNA identification testing program; however, some of the identification work was contracted out to private laboratories.