Introduction
This year, Kuwait is going to begin the collection of DNA samples from all its citizens and visitors for the sake of national security (Lee, 2016). Before that, only the UAE had the policy of collecting the DNA of its entire population, although the complete coverage is not achieved yet (Wallace et al., 2014, p. 4). The dilemma of universal DNA retention is being contemplated by governments all over the world, but for the time being, only two countries consider the security benefits offered by the method to be more important than its potential negative consequences and the right for privacy. In the US, the applicability of DNA retention and use is limited, even though suggestions for their expansion proceed to be voiced (James, 2012). In this paper, both the advantages and disadvantages of the method are considered, which allows me to argue that any changes to the legislation that regulates DNA retention needs to be considered with utmost care, and it is best not to remove too many restrictions as long as the negative consequences of such a decision cannot be severely limited.
The paper uses credible and relevant sources: recent peer-reviewed articles, a report for Congress, current legislation on DNA retention from the FBI website, and news articles.
DNA Retention: Advantages and Disadvantages
DNA
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is “is the fundamental building block for an individual’s entire genetic makeup” (James, 2012, p. 1). It is unique for every person with the exception of twins, and it can be extracted for examination from a number of sources, including saliva, blood, and hair.
Since the 1980s, the states of the US have been introducing legislation that required the collection of DNA samples from the people who had committed violent crimes, and in 1994, the national database of DNA was created (James, 2012, p. 2). The specific legislation on state databases are regulated by states; the national US database is regulated by the federal law. The retention of the DNA of innocent people is not included in the current federal legislation; if a person is proved innocent, his or her DNA is to be expunged from the national database (FBI, 2016). However, the situation may be different for individual states (Wallace et al., 2014, p. 4).
The experiences of Kuwait and the UAE are yet to demonstrate the consequences of the extreme expansion of DNA retention system, but another country has also provided some information for the consideration in the worldwide debate on the subject. The UK practice of retention of the DNA of minor offenders (including children who had been damaging trees or the people who were proven innocent) has been raising criticism. In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights requested the deletion of innocent people’s DNA from forensic databases. The UK responded with the Protection of Freedoms Act of 2012, which decreased the years of innocents DNA retention and imposed certain limitations on it, but did not eliminate it (Wallace, Jackson, Gruber, & Thibedeau, 2014, pp. 1-2). It appears necessary to discuss the pluses of DNA retention in an attempt to understand this course of actions.
Advantages
The advantage of DNA use in justice systems is apparent: it provides forensics with a powerful tool for detecting offenders and exonerating the innocent. The first case that was resolved with the help of DNA proved its potential. Thirty years ago, a 17-year-old boy with learning difficulties, who appeared to demonstrate the knowledge of some undisclosed details of another crime committed by a serial killer, was arrested but eventually proved innocent since his DNA was completely different from the one found on the dead bodies of the raped girls. The test was carried out by Alec Jeffreys, the geneticist who had discovered the technique of checking the DNA of a person and comparing it to others with the help of photographic film; the police used his discovery in finding the killer (Cobain, 2016). Nowadays, the system is much more sophisticated, computerized and improved (James, 2012), and DNA is a very important tool that can help in crimes resolution, but it still has some major flaws.
Disadvantages
The disadvantages of DNA retention include those related to technology, legislation, and human rights. The latter involve the breaches of the presumption of innocence and the Fourth Amendment (in the US), which are typically regarded as justified when offenders are concerned (Wallace et al., 2014), although some critics protest against such discriminatory approach as well (Crook, 2011). The technology issues are primarily concerned with the possibility of error (and false accusation based on it) that can originate from a mistake, mishandling or deliberate misuse by the officers or the government, the possibility of loss of data, and the chance of its seizure by criminals (Wallace et al., 2014, p. 2). In order to avoid mistakes, accreditation and regulation are required, but, unfortunately, the legislation that is supposed to fulfill these functions also tends to have some flaws (James, 2012). James (2012), for example, attracts the attention of the US Congress to the issue of accreditation and standardization of procedures in state laboratories (which would improve the efficiency of data handling). Similarly, Iyengar (2014) points out the conflicts of state legislations that complicate the operation of the national database. Both the technology and the law are being improved, but, as James (2012) states, these improvements can only “reduce the likelihood of flawed results;” they are extremely unlikely to eliminate errors completely (p. 41).
Finally, it should be pointed out that the UK experience of including innocents’ DNA in the database did not affect the percentage of resolved crimes while increasing the resources consumed by the project; also, the amplified database size increases the chances of false matches and errors (Wallace et al., 2014, p. 2).
Conclusion
To sum up, DNA retention has both flaws and benefits, and the modern world attempts to find a balance that would allow enjoying maximum advantages while minimizing the possibility of errors. In the US, for example, it is believed that the in the case of offenders (specific for every state), the potential benefits outweigh the potential harm. In other words, it is assumed that the actions of offenders and the possibility of repeated offense explain and justify the danger that the DNA retention holds for them. However, the US government and those of all other countries with the exception of Kuwait and the UAE do not believe that the potential benefits of a universal DNA database can balance out its potential harm. The future experience of Kuwait and the UAE will show if this decision is a wise one. For the time being, I would say that I agree with the very careful way, in which DNA is being treated by the majority of the world. Given the imperfections of the justice system and DNA analysis, it appears logical to be very cautious in removing the limitations related to DNA retention. Such expansions of legislation need to be justified by their practical benefits and complemented by improvements in efficiency and reduction of flaws and errors. Given the fact that continuous improvement in the technology and legislation is not an option but a requirement, I believe that changes will occur, and DNA retention will become a better tool for the justice system.
References
Cobain, I. (2016). Killer breakthrough – the day DNA evidence first nailed a murderer.The Guardian. Web.
Crook, M. J. (2011). Sacrificing Liberty for Security: North Carolina’s Unconstitutional Search and Seizure of Arrestee DNA. Campbell Law Review, 34, 473-515. Web.
FBI. (2016). Legislation Affecting the Federal DNA Database Unit. Web.
Iyengar, V. (2014). Maryland v. King: the case for uniform, nationwide DNA collection and DNA database laws in the United States. Information & Communications Technology Law, 23(1), 77-80. Web.
James, N. (2012). DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants, and Issues. Web.
Lee, S. (2016). Kuwait becomes first country to collect DNA samples from all citizens and visitors: Report. Newsweek. Web.
Wallace, H., Jackson, A., Gruber, J., & Thibedeau, A. (2014). Forensic DNA databases–Ethical and legal standards: A global review. Egyptian Journal Of Forensic Sciences, 4(3), 57-63. Web.