What do murderers, falsely convicted individuals and skeptical fathers all have in common — a growing reliance upon DNA testing to prove either guilt, innocence or paternity; basically did they do the deed query in all three instances? Is it right to rely upon this evidence, does its utility outweigh privacy concerns, and where are we going with the science of hereditary identification whose discovery is celebrated on April 25th — aka World DNA Day?
DNA is the hereditary material in humans and virtually all other organisms, and outside of identical twins, no two humans have the same DNA code, making it a powerful form of evidence.
Kirk Bloodsworth was the first death row inmate exonerated through DNA analysis over 30 years ago. Since then almost two hundred people have been released from death row due to wrongful convictions, and 35 of those exonerations occurred through subsequent DNA testing. People do heinous things that warrant the death penalty, but it is impossible to administer this ultimate penalty in a just or reliable fashion which has been proven through DNA analysis.
The growing use of hereditary evidence isn’t solely a godsend for exonerating people — it is also being used to identify and capture violent criminals. Exceptional police work continues to crack “cold cases” regarding dangerous predators.
The Golden State Killer is a prime example of DNA’s benefit that was a long time in coming. This vicious beast started raping and murdering women in California in 1976. The crime spree lasted for years with 51 rapes and 13 murders having been attributed to this monster. It wasn’t until 2018 that Joseph DeAngelo was arrested and pled guilty to avoid the death penalty. His capture resulted from police work that studied DNA from private registries, thus identifying relatives which led to a substantial narrowing of the suspect pool.
A National Library of Medicine post dated October 2, 2018, observed: “Far from being a forensic anomaly, the public genetic search that led to the arrest of the Golden State Killer suspect is quickly on its way to becoming routine procedure. What limits, if any, to place on police access to genetic genealogy databases must be thoughtfully considered and soon, with robust input from the public.”
My robust input is that the only reasonable limit on DNA investigations when it comes to catching violent criminals should be that competent testing standards are used in obtaining this powerful form of evidence. Police should have access to and the right to use information from all private DNA registries, so long as the testing methods satisfy medical standards for veracity. Most Americans ought to be relieved if their private ancestry searches inadvertently provide evidence that leads to the conviction of murderers and rapists even if these creeps happen to be relatives.
Research into public genetic search DNA testing led to the arrest and likely future conviction of Bryan Kohberger, the man charged with the murder of four University of Idaho students on November 13, 2022. His DNA was reportedly found on a knife sheath left at the scene, and that was connected to relatives registered with private DNA databases. Like the Golden State Killer, the police were able to narrow the pool of potential culprits until they identified their key suspect. Kohberger is innocent until proven guilty, but I wouldn’t want to be up against the evidence reported in the media.
When it comes to identifying fathers, approximately one in three men who undergo paternity tests are found not to be the father. That high percentage isn’t surprising as the sampling is drawn from men who already have questions about their fatherhood, but DNA testing has become key in identifying paternity.
The use of DNA for medical diagnosis is also advancing at light speed. There are obvious reasons for requiring confidentiality in this arena as patients should be able to expect complete privacy and confidentiality when DNA testing is used for diagnostic purposes. However, that concern doesn’t exist where people voluntarily seek information about their heritage.
We are living in times where the majority of us feel we have no privacy left as we are spied upon through our electronic devices. That concern is valid, but society’s interest in capturing violent criminals should outweigh any expectation of privacy stated or implicit in the gathering of DNA for ancestry searches.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In