Baton Rouge, 2003 Serial murderer: 5 murders in 18 months

Baton Rouge, 2003

• Serial murderer: 5 murders in 18 months

Use of DNA in case…

• DNA dragnets:– “voluntary” samples– Disposition issue

• Development of racial profile from DNA– DNAprint genomics

• Suspect caught because his DNA was collected because he was suspect in another case and his DNA was matched to DNA from crime scene.

• Extensive criminal history

Issues

• State/society versus individual

• How to organize the state

• Equity

Individual vs State

• Surveillance: location and genetic• Who should be subject to this surveillance?

– Violent felons?– All felons?– Arrestees– Suspects?– Easily available… dragnets, databanks, etc– Everyone?

Equity: Who should be subject to this surveillance and why?

• Who should be subject to this surveillance?– Violent felons? All felons? Arrestees? Suspects?

– Easily available samples?

– Everyone?

– Currently: in UK approx 1 in 10 men in database, and in US 1 in 50 men.

• Why?– Deprivation of rights vs probabilitistic logic

(Kaye/Smith)

Genealogy as Investigative Tool: The case of Lynette White

• Stabbed 50 times on Valentine’s day, 1988

The case of Lynette White

• The Cardiff three

• But convictions were thrown out…

The case of Lynette White

• Case re-opened in 2000

• …and spots of blood were found on skirting board.

The case of Lynette White

• DNA searched against the database.

• No matches.

• Examined “near-misses”: 600 people 70 a 14 year old born after murder

• DNA matched uncle of 14 year old, Jeffrey Gafoor

Genealogy as investigative tool

• One allele match per locus, Y chromosome, mtDNA matches

• Increased precision with increased number of loci

• FSS sells “familial searches” for 5000 pounds.

Genealogy as investigative tool

• How many people would under de facto surveillance?

• Legal issues under deprivation theory

• Upsets political balance

State/society vs individual

• Empowering the state to protect individuals

• Limiting the state’s ability to abuse individuals

• What is the architecture of trust?– Can’t depend on wrong doers to take pictures

and videos of their acts

Constraining the state…

•

Constraining the State

• Disempower the state– Minimize/eliminate databanks/databases

• Regulating the state– Selectively disempower (e.g., sample retention)– Rules– for both people and technologies– Transparency

• Restructuring the state– Buffering forensic scientists– Institutionalizing “guardians of privacy”

Other big issues…

• Finality– Post-conviction: 143 exonerations– Statutes of limitations, “John Doe” warrants

• Reflection– Exonerations– People that should have been caught

• Behavior, genetics, and criminal justice

Pushing the conversation forward

• Picking up the baton from the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence

• What do we know? What do we need to know? What are the trade offs?