DNA and the Criminal Justice System

The developments in genetics have posed particular policy challenges in a variety of areas in our society. One of the earliest areas to be affected has been criminal justice, because of the durability and polymorphism of genetic material.

Biological material left at a crime scene (e.g., a rape) can thus be remarkably powerful for investigations and in trials. The application of this technology has, for example, led to close to 300 exonerations, as well as thousands of investigatory leads from databases in the US. DNA thus presents a series of policy challenges, from how to learn from errors of the past that DNA has uncovered, to dealing with the potential threat to civil liberties, to the practicalities of how to manage a new and powerful technology within the criminal justice system.

I have edited a book on this subject, which lays out a wide array of perspectives. Probably the work that has received the most attention is a paper evaluating the potential of using existing DNA databases for the identification of relatives of those in the databases as potential suspects. I have also coauthored with FrederickBieber a number of op eds, including on the lessons to be learned from the wrongful conviction of Dennis Maher in Massachusetts, on the use of DNA to identify suspects through their relatives’ DNA, and concerns raised by a DNA dragnet in Massachusetts, and the issues raised by the identification of a suspect in a serial murder case in California.

Publications List

  • bieber_lazer_finding-criminals-through-dna-of-their-relatives
    Lazer, David, Frederick R. Bieber, and Charles H. Brenner. 2012. “Finding Criminals Through DNA of Their Relatives”. American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    DNA methods are now widely used for many forensic purposes, including routine investigation of serious crimes and for identification of persons killed in mass disasters or wars (1–4). DNA databases of convicted offenders are maintained by every U.S. state and nearly every industrialized country, allowing comparison of crime scene DNA profiles to one another and to known offenders (5). The policy in the United Kingdom stipulates that almost any collision with law enforcement results in the collection of DNA (6). Following the U.K. lead, the United States has shifted steadily toward inclusion of all felons, and federal and six U.S. state laws now include some provision for those arrested or indicted. At present, there are over 3 million samples in the U.S. offender/arrestee state and federal DNA databases (7). Statutes governing the use of such samples and protection against misuse vary from state to state (8). Although direct comparisons of DNA profiles of known individuals and unknown biological evidence are most common, indirect genetic kinship analyses, using the DNA of biological relatives, are often necessary for humanitarian mass disaster and missing person identifications (1, 2, 9). Such methods could potentially be applied to searches of the convicted offender/arrestee DNA databases. When crime scene samples do not match anyone in a search of forensic databases, the application of indirect methods could identify individuals in the database who are close relatives of the potential suspects. This raises compelling policy questions about the balance between collective security and individual privacy (10).