Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:12 pm
Time: 9:12 pm
Results for dna fingerprinting
13 results foundAuthor: Innocence Project Title: 250 Exonerated: Too Many Wrongfully Convicted Summary: This report details the background of 250 DNA exoneration cases and includes statistics on the common causes of the wrongful convictions. Details: New York: Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 2010. 52p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118416 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingJudicial ErrorWrongful ConvictionsWrongful Imprisonment |
Author: Barbour, Emily C. Title: DNA Databanking: Selected Fourth Amendment Issues and Analysis Summary: Over the past few decades, state and federal lawmakers have promoted the development of databases containing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) profiles for individuals who are under the supervision of the criminal justice system due to their known or suspected involvement in a felony or other qualifying crime. Congress has demonstrated concern toward some aspects of DNA databanking by requiring expungement of a DNA profile in certain circumstances, prohibiting most non-forensic uses of DNA profiles and databases, and restricting familial searching. However, in general, Congress has taken a supportive attitude toward DNA databanking and has incentivized the development, expansion, and integration of DNA databases. As DNA database programs have widened in scope and grown in numbers, their consistency with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has increasingly been challenged. In the context of compulsory DNA collection, courts have widely upheld laws mandating the collection of DNA from persons who were convicted and are subject to the penal system’s custody or supervision. However, no judicial consensus has emerged regarding the constitutionality of mandating DNA collection from arrestees who have been criminally indicted. Instead, courts have split over the existence and scope of an arrestee’s reasonable expectation of privacy and the degree of privacy intrusion caused by DNA sampling. The limited number of court decisions in this area also suggests that there are conflicting opinions about the analogousness of DNA collection and fingerprinting. Courts have generally upheld the indefinite use and storage of a lawfully databanked DNA profile after its source’s conviction. However, not all courts agree that any post-conviction use of those profiles is constitutionally acceptable. In particular, observers are now raising questions about the Fourth Amendment consistency of using databases for non-forensic purposes and for familial searching — that is, using the DNA databases to locate potential relatives of an unidentified suspect. Currently, these concerns are largely confined to the scholarly literature — they have not come before a federal court — and are primarily centered on state database programs. Unlike some state DNA databases, the National DNA Index System (NDIS) and the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) can not be used for either non-forensic research or intentional familial searching. However, the increase in states that authorize familial searching suggests that it may not be long before the constitutionality of familial searching comes before a federal court. As these issues percolate up to the courts, new advances and revelations in the science of forensic analysis and databanking may have potentially significant legal implications. Several courts have suggested that new forensic techniques and scientific findings would require them to reevaluate their legal conclusions and analysis. In particular, research into the scope and nature of the information revealed by the “junk” DNA used in forensic analysis may alter how courts measure the intrusiveness of DNA profiling if it suggests that “junk” DNA reveals more sensitive information about its source than scientists previously thought. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: R41847: Accessed July 21, 2011 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41847.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41847.pdf Shelf Number: 122139 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Fourth AmendmentOffender Supervision |
Author: James, Nathan Title: DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants and Issues Summary: Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is the fundamental building block for an individual’s entire genetic makeup. DNA is a powerful tool for law enforcement investigations because each person’s DNA is different from that of every other individual (except for identical twins). DNA can be extracted from a number of sources, such as hair, bone, teeth, saliva, and blood. As early as the 1980s, states began enacting laws that required collecting DNA samples from offenders convicted of certain sexual and other violent crimes. The samples were then analyzed and their profiles entered into state databases. Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory convened a working group of federal, state, and local forensic scientists to establish guidelines for the use of forensic DNA analysis in laboratories. The group proposed guidelines that are the basis of current national quality assurance standards, and it urged the creation of a national DNA database. The criminal justice community began to utilize DNA analyses more often in criminal investigations and trials, and in 1994 Congress enacted legislation to authorize the creation of a national DNA database. Federal law (42 U.S.C §14132(a)) authorizes the FBI to operate and maintain a national DNA database where DNA profiles generated from samples collected from people under applicable legal authority and samples collected at crime scenes can be compared to generate leads in criminal investigations. Statutory provisions also authorize the collection of DNA samples from federal offenders and arrestees, District of Columbia offenders, and military offenders. State laws dictate which convicted offenders, and sometimes people arrested for crimes, will have profiles entered into state DNA databases, while federal law dictates the scope of the national database. Increasing awareness of the power of DNA to solve crimes has resulted in increased demand for DNA analysis, which has resulted in a backlog of casework. Some jurisdictions have started to use their DNA databases for familial searching, which involves using offender profiles to identify relatives who might be perpetrators of crimes. In addition to solving crimes, DNA analysis can help exonerate people incarcerated for crimes they did not commit. Congress has authorized several grant programs to provide assistance to state and local governments for forensic sciences. Many of the programs focus on providing state and local governments with funding to reduce the backlog of forensic and convicted offender DNA samples waiting to be processed and entered into the national database. Since FY2006, Congress has appropriated approximately $785 million for backlog reduction and laboratory capacity enhancement programs. However, other grant programs provide funding for related purposes, such as offsetting the cost of providing post-conviction DNA testing. In the 1990s and the early part of the last decade, most of the debate in Congress focused on the scope of DNA databases, reducing the backlog of DNA casework, and providing access to postconviction DNA testing. Most of the debate about the scope of DNA databases faded away with the enactment of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), which expanded federal collection statutes to include anyone arrested or detained under the authority of the United States. The act also expanded the scope of the national database to include DNA profiles of individuals arrested for state crimes. However, concerns about the backlog of DNA casework and access to post-conviction testing have persisted. In addition, new issues related to the use of DNA in criminal justice have emerged, including whether (1) DNA databases should be used to conduct familial searches, (2) sexual assault evidence collection kits (i.e., “rape kits”) should be standardized, and (3) there should be national accreditation standards for forensic laboratories. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2011. 49p. Source: CRS R41800: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41800.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41800.pdf Shelf Number: 124305 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Forensic ScienceForensics |
Author: Anderson, Vincent J. Title: Decrease the Number of Contract Laboratory Cases Awaiting Data Review While Improving DNA Analysis Efficiency Summary: As of September 30, 2011, case turn-around time increased from 71 days to 108 days for delivery of the final report, due to the assigning of older cases in the backlog and a change in reporting dates. The samples per analyst per month increased 82 percent from a baseline of 15.9 to 29.0. Also, the backlog of requests for DNA analysis decreased approximately 52 percent from a baseline of 3,107 to 1,491. Although no funds from this grant were directly used to fund the validation of new analytical platforms, because of funds used from this grant for overtime to perform subcontractor reviews, LAPD personnel were able to conduct research into developing a method for spermatozoa identification and extraction using Laser Micro dissection. As of September 30, 2011, LAPD has reviewed 2,865 reports from outside vendors under the Efficiency Grant. Those reviews have led to 1,705 cases with at least one CODIS upload and 895 cases with at least one CODIS Hit Notification. Those cases were reviewed on grant-funded overtime in the amount of $238,061.64. This grant stemmed from the LAPD’s need to upload subcontractor DNA profiles into the CODIS database in a timely and efficient manner while still allowing time to develop and implement DNA analysis efficiency measures. This circumstance encouraged the LAPD to apply for the 2009 Forensic DNA Unit Efficiency Improvement grant (Efficiency Grant). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 66p. Source: NCJ 236693: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2012 at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236693.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236693.pdf Shelf Number: 124427 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDNA FingerprintingDNA Typing (U.S.)Forensic ScienceForensicsSexual Assault |
Author: Dubourg, Richard Title: DNA Retention Policy: Results of Analysis Relating to the Protections of ‘the Scottish Model’ Summary: This paper presents the results of the analysis on the protections provided by the Scottish policy on DNA retention. The analysis considered the length of time for which the offending risk of a group of individuals who might be subject to the retention policy is above the level observed in the general population. This was taken to provide an initial indication of the retention period which might be prima facie justified on this restricted criterion. Factors such as the costs of retention and the non-quantifiable effects on individual privacy would be expected to point towards a shorter, rather than longer, retention period, especially where statistical error gave a range of possible retention periods to be considered. Due to a lack of suitable information, it was not possible to consider these factors formally as part of the analysis. Details: London: Home Office, 2011. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 58: Accessed April 11, 2012 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/other-science-research/horr58/horr58-summary?view=Binary Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/other-science-research/horr58/horr58-summary?view=Binary Shelf Number: 124925 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingDNA Typing(U.K.)Evidence Retention |
Author: Lynch, Jennifer Title: From Fingerprints to DNA: Biometric Data Collection in U.S. Immigrant Communities and Beyond Summary: The collection of biometrics—including fingerprints, DNA, and face-recognition ready photographs—is becoming more and more a part of society. Both the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are in the process of expanding their biometrics databases to collect even more information, like face prints and iris scans. The expansion of biometric data collection, however, is uniquely affecting undocumented immigrants and immigrant communities. Under DHS’s Secure Communities program, for example, states are required to share their fingerprint data with DHS, thus subjecting undocumented and even documented immigrants in the United States to heightened fears of deportation should they have any interaction with law enforcement. In this report, co-sponsored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), author Jennifer Lynch explains the different technologies for collecting biometrics, as well as how that data is collected, stored and used. She raises concerns about data-sharing, legal protection, technological problems, then proposes changes to control and limit the storage of biometrics to benefit not only immigrants, but all people in the U.S. Details: Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center, 2012. 23p. Source: Special Report: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2012 at https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/BiometricsImmigration052112.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/BiometricsImmigration052112.pdf Shelf Number: 125330 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingEvidence RetentionForensicsImmigrants (U.S.) |
Author: West, Emily M. Title: Court Findings of Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims in Post-Conviction Appeals and Civil Suits Among the First 255 DNA Exoneration Cases Summary: Prosecutorial misconduct remains a largely underdeveloped research issue in large part because of the challenges of defining what constitutes misconduct, but also because some misconduct never comes to light. For example, it is impossible to know the extent to which prosecutors engage in misconduct, especially if it involves suppressing potentially exculpatory evidence that never gets disclosed at trial. DNA exoneration cases offer a unique perspective on this issue, given that we know the clients in these cases were convicted of crimes they did not commit. As such, while courts differentiate between harmless and harmful error, we know now that what was deemed as harmless error in these appeals may have contributed to the wrongful convictions. Results from this study indicate that of the 65 DNA exoneration cases involving documented appeals and/or civil suits addressing prosecutorial misconduct, 31 (48%) resulted in court findings of error, with 18% of findings leading to reversals (harmful error). It is difficult to place these court error rates in perspective—first, because these rates are based solely on documented appeals, providing an incomplete picture of the total number of appeals in these cases and their outcomes. Second, these cases are unrepresentative of the larger offender population, making up those who were mainly convicted in the 1980s, for violent crimes, sentenced to long prison terms, and dispersed throughout the nation. While a few studies have looked at outcomes in appeals alleging prosecutorial misconduct, most have been limited to specific regions or to a subset of conviction types. While not a perfect comparison, there has been one large, nationwide study, by the Center of Public Integrity on prosecutorial misconduct which found that among all 11,452 documented appeals alleging some type of prosecutorial misconduct between 1970 and 2002, 2,012 appeals led to reversals or remanded indictments, indicating harmful error—a rate of 17.6%. This is nearly identical to the rate of harmful error findings in the DNA exoneration cases of 18%. This may suggest that innocent persons raising claims of misconduct on appeal are not much more likely to find relief than presumed guilty persons raising similar claims—a suggestion that raises questions about the ability of the appellate process to correct wrongful convictions. In fact, an earlier study of the first 200 DNA exonerees found that reversal rates for the DNA exoneree cases were the same when compared to a matched sample of criminal cases with similar characteristics, where innocence had not been established. Details: New York: Innocence Project, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, 2010. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2012 at http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Innocence_Project_Pros_Misconduct.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Innocence_Project_Pros_Misconduct.pdf Shelf Number: 126507 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingProsecutorial MisconductWrongful Convictions |
Author: Doleac, Jennifer L. Title: The Effects of DNA Databases on Crime Summary: Since 1988, every US state has established a database of criminal offenders’ DNA profiles. These databases have received widespread attention in the media and popular culture, but this paper provides the first rigorous analysis of their impact on crime. DNA databases are distinctive for two reasons: (1) They exhibit enormous returns to scale, and (2) they work mainly by increasing the probability that a criminal is punished rather than the severity of the punishment. I exploit the details and timing of state DNA database expansions in two ways, first to address the effects of DNA profiling on individual’s subsequent criminal behavior and then to address the impacts on crime rates and arrest probabilities. I first show that profiled violent offenders are more likely to return to prison than similar, unprofiled offenders. This suggests that the higher probability of getting caught outweighs the deterrent effect of DNA profiling. I then show that larger DNA databases reduce crime rates, especially in categories where forensic evidence is likely to be collected at the scene—e.g., murder, rape, assault, and vehicle theft. The probability of arresting a suspect in new crimes falls as databases grow, likely due to selection effects. Back-of-the-envelope estimates of the marginal cost of preventing each crime suggest that DNA databases are much more cost-effective than other common law enforcement tools. Details: Charlottesville, VA: Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia,, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed March 4, 2013 at: http://www.batten.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/fwpapers/Doleac_DNADatabases_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.batten.virginia.edu/sites/default/files/fwpapers/Doleac_DNADatabases_0.pdf Shelf Number: 127821 Keywords: Criminal DeterrenceCriminal InvestigationDNA FingerprintingDNA Typing |
Author: Samuels, Julie E. Title: Collecting DNA at Arrest: Policies, Practices, and Implications Summary: This report examines arrestee DNA laws, their implementation in the field, and their subsequent effects on agency operations and public safety. Twenty-eight states and the federal government have enacted laws authorizing DNA collection from individuals arrested for or charged with certain offenses, and the practice has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Arrestee laws vary across states, particularly with respect to qualifying offenses, point of collection and analysis, and expungement procedures, and impose significant administrative and analytic burdens on state laboratories and collecting agencies. The report finds that arrestee DNA laws have contributed additional profiles to CODIS and led to additional hits, but is unable to estimate the total number of hits for which arrestee laws were solely responsible. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2013. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412831-Collecting-DNA-at-Arrest-Policies-Practices-and-Implications-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412831-Collecting-DNA-at-Arrest-Policies-Practices-and-Implications-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129151 Keywords: Arrest and Apprehension (U.S.)DNA FingerprintingDNA Typing |
Author: Nunn, Samuel Title: The TriggerPro Gun Swab Evaluation: Comparing the Use of a Touch DNA Collection Technique to Firearm Fingerprinting Summary: From July 2008 through August 2009, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) patrol officers in the East District were supplied with pre-packaged kits, known as TriggerPro ID, for use in collecting possible DNA samples from firearms encountered or confiscated during traffic stops or in response to other criminal incidents. TriggerPro gun swab kits are an example of “touch DNA” technology, which is an evidence gathering approach that attempts to collect viable DNA samples from small quantities of skin cells that remain after an individual has touched objects or places. The traditional method of gathering touch DNA evidence involves using a sterile swab moistened by distilled water. The pilot project was designed to examine the effectiveness of swabbing firearms to collect DNA samples capable of connecting individuals to firearms. The evaluation of TriggerPro is based on a comparison of two forensic methods: fingerprinting firearms versus collecting touch DNA samples from firearms using TriggerPro gun swabs. CCJR evaluation findings are summarized in this report. Details: Indianapolis: Center for Criminal Justice Research, Indiana University, 2010. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/5123 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/5123 Shelf Number: 129541 Keywords: DNA FingerprintingDNA TypingFirearmsGuns |
Author: Emami, Catherine Title: Use and acceptance of biometric technologies among victims of identity crime and misuse in Australia Summary: Biometric technologies make use of an individual's unique biological characteristics to identify them in their dealings with government and business. Common biometrics include fingerprints, iris recognition, voice pattern recognition and facial recognition, among others. There has been a considerable increase in the uptake of biometric technologies by a number of organisations in recent years, as society looks for ways to safeguard personal information from potential misuse. For instance, fingerprint scanning - once the mainstay of forensic policing - is increasingly used as a means of verifying the identity of mobile phone and tablet users. In 2014, the Australian Institute of Criminology conducted an online survey to gain a greater understanding of identity crime and misuse in Australia. The survey also asked a sample of Australian victims of identity crime about their experiences of, and willingness to use, biometric technologies. This paper presents the results of the research, which indicate generally high levels of previous exposure to biometrics. It also presents some unexpected findings concerning those willing to take up biometrics in the future. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 511: Accessed May 5, 2016 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi511.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi511.pdf Shelf Number: 138940 Keywords: BiometricsDNA FingerprintingFacial RecognitionForensicsIdentity Theft |
Author: Doleac, Jennifer L. Title: The effects of DNA databases on the deterrence and detection of offenders Summary: Countries around the world use databases of criminal offenders' DNA profiles to match known offenders with crime scene evidence. The purpose is to ease police detection work and to increase the probability that offenders get caught if they reoffend, thereby deterring future criminal activity. However, relatively little is known about the behavioral effects of this law enforcement tool. We exploit a large expansion of Denmark's DNA database in 2005 to measure the effect of DNA profiling on criminal behavior. Individuals charged after the expansion were much more likely to be added to the DNA database than similar offenders charged just before that date. Using a regression discontinuity strategy, we find that the average effect of the DNA database is a reduction in recidivism. By using the rich Danish register data, we further show that effects are heterogeneous across observable offender characteristics; it is mainly offenders initially charged with violent crime that are deterred from committing new crimes. We also find that DNA profiling has a positive detection effect, increasing the probability that repeat offenders get caught. Finally, we find evidence that DNA profiling changes non-criminal behavior: offenders added to the DNA database are more likely to get or remain married. This is consistent with the hypothesis that, by deterring future criminal behavior, DNA profiling changes an offender's life course for the better. Details: Unpublished paper, 2016. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DNA_Denmark.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Denmark URL: http://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DNA_Denmark.pdf Shelf Number: 147325 Keywords: Criminal DeterrenceCriminal InvestigationDNA FingerprintingDNA TypingRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Doleac, Jennifer L. Title: The Interaction and Impact of State DNA Database Laws, Final Summary Overview Summary: Despite the widespread use of criminal offender DNA databases by the law enforcement community, relatively little is known about their real-world effects on criminal behavior. The purpose of DNA databases is to quickly and accurately match crime scene evidence with known offenders. They aim to reduce crime by increasing the probability of punishment, conditional on offending. They also exhibit large returns to scale. For these reasons, DNA databases are likely to be far more cost-effective than traditional law enforcement tools. Indeed, previous research has shown that DNA databases have large crime-reducing effects at the state level (Doleac, 2015). However, because DNA database expansions are - like most crime policies - legislated at the state level, the resulting policies may not be efficient from a national perspective. Each state will weigh its own costs and benefits when making policy decisions, without regard for their effects on other states. But state DNA databases do not exist in a vacuum: they could have effects on criminal behavior elsewhere. The federal government can improve the national efficiency of state-level policies by inducing states to consider the costs and benefits to their neighbors - i.e., to internalize the externalities. The federal government has invested a large amount of money in helping states expand their databases and clear sample backlogs, presumably because it perceives positive externalities to state database expansions. Positive externalities would exist if offenders are highly mobile, and are deterred or incapacitated upon being added to a state database. If they stop committing crime, this would reduce crime in other states. Positive externalities could also exist if profiles from one state help other states catch and incapacitate offenders. One important aspect of DNA database policy in the United States is that states can search for profile matches across state lines, using CODIS. This should increase the positive externalities of state-level expansions. For instance, if Georgia expands its database, neighboring states such as Florida could benefit from being able to search those additional profiles. Depending on how often crimes in Florida are committed by out-of-state offenders, the expansion of Georgia's database could help Florida identify and convict more offenders, reducing its own crime rate. When Georgia is weighing the costs and benefits of expanding its database, it will probably not consider these external benefits, and so its database will be inefficiently small; hence the justification for federal funding to encourage more expansions. However, there could be negative externalities, particularly if a state's database expansion induces probable offenders to move to another state. For instance, suppose Georgia adds felony arrestees to its database, but Florida does not include that group. Offenders in Georgia who think they could be arrested for a felony will have an incentive to move to Florida, to avoid DNA profiling and therefore detection for past or future crimes. (Such a behavioral effect is not unreasonable to expect: we typically assume that human capital is mobile, and that workers move to places with better jobs.) In this case, Georgia's database expansion would displace some of its own crime to Florida. As before, Georgia would not include this external cost in its cost-benefit analysis, but in this case a state database that seems optimal from the state's perspective will be inefficiently large from the national perspective. Which of these externalities dominates in the DNA database context is an empirical question. The goal of this project is to answer that question. This report summarizes the main findings. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2017. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251035.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251035.pdf Shelf Number: 147416 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisCriminal DeterrenceCriminal InvestigationDNA FingerprintingDNA TypingRecidivismReoffending |