• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Center on Quality Policing A RAND INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Support RAND TERRORISM AND Purchase this document HOMELAND SECURITY Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Center on Quality Policing View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru- ments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un- dergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity. TECHNICAL Center on Quality Policing REPORT A RAND INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER ISSUES IN POLICING Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England Jeremiah Goulka, Carl Matthies, Emma Disley, Paul Steinberg RAND RESEARCH AREAS any senior U.S. law enforcement offi- • In making turnaround and backlog comparisons, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EDUCATION AND THE ARTS cials believe that the English criminal four factors in the U.S. system provide some ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT justice system has capitalized more needed context in assessing differences between the HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE fully on the crime-fighting potential of two systems: (1) the existence of justice-oriented INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION Mforensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence than confirmation checks; (2) the number and nature of INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS the U.S. criminal justice system. This report explores requests for profiles (i.e., for crime-scene samples, NATIONAL SECURITY the forensic DNA analysis systems in England and the the difficulty of extracting a profile); (3) discretion POPULATION AND AGING United States to find out whether these perceptions of law enforcement to decide what evidence to PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY are accurate. Some key findings that are fleshed out in send for typing; and (4) the resources available in TERRORISM AND the report include the following: the labs to deal with the requests (i.e., staffing and HOMELAND SECURITY • The two forensic DNA systems have some funda- time-saving technologies). mental differences, with England’s being far more • The stringency of the United States’s National centralized and privatized than that of the United DNA Index System (NDIS)1 and the decision to States. use 13 loci2 seem to reflect a belief that forensic • The English forensic DNA process has fewer steps DNA should be used as “a laser rather than a shot- than its American counterpart, but some of the gun” and that matches, from the sheer improbabil- extra steps—such as confirming identity and veri- ity of a chance occurrence, should constitute strong fying report accuracy—were added to provide bet- evidence of culpability. This implies a difference in ter checks in the interests of justice. strategy and philosophy between the two systems • England’s forensic DNA analysis process has about how to use law enforcement resources. more fully integrated productivity-enhancing • In assessing how DNA analysis is used to aid technologies—specifically, laboratory information investigations in the U.S. system, we found that management systems (LIMS) and automation— database matches are more strongly related to than do America’s public laboratory processes. the number of crime-scene samples than to the • The data we have been able to gather and analyze number of offender profiles in the database. This (and information from our interviews) indicate suggests that “widening the net,” which research This product is part of the that turnaround time is faster in England than indicates has only a minimal deterrent effect, RAND Corporation technical in the United States, although labs in the United might be less cost-effective than allocating more report series. RAND technical reports are used to communicate States can match England’s turnaround time under effort to samples from crime scenes. Indeed, the research findings and policy recommendations on a specific exigent circumstances. England has no backlog of UK Home Office reached this same conclusion topic for a targeted audience. All cases waiting to be analyzed, whereas the United in an analysis of its National DNA Database RAND reports undergo rigorous 3 peer review to ensure high States has a considerable backlog. (NDNAD) performance. standards for research quality and objectivity. © RAND 2010 We would like to thank Los Angeles Police Department chief Charlie Beck 1 The NDIS is the top tier of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and other members of the Center on Quality Policing consortium who consisting of eligible samples from the databases of each state, Washington, proposed this topic and who supported us in conducting the research. We D.C., and the U.S. military. would like to thank the many individuals who graciously spent time speak- 2 A locus (plural loci) is a specific location on the DNA molecule. The term ing with us and providing data. Finally, we would like to thank our peer can refer to a coding region of DNA (gene) or a noncoding region, as in reviewers, Robin Williams, professor emeritus in the School of Applied Social most forensic DNA tests. Sciences at Durham University and professor of forensic science studies at 3 The Home Office is effectively the UK’s counterpart to the U.S. Depart- www.rand.org Northumbria University, and Brian Jackson of RAND. ment of Homeland Security and aspects of the U.S. Department of Justice, – 2 – • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) CODIS4 whether these perceptions are valid and, if so, to reports relay only the size of the database and identify some of the factors causing the discrepancy. the number of matches recorded, along with Addressing this research question proved selected anecdotes. Database size alone should not extremely challenging due to the lack of reliable data be viewed as a measure of “success” without con- on which to base a comparison. On one hand, private sidering concomitant trade-offs. The number of labs in both countries would not share information matches generated is an output measure, but it is that they considered to be commercially sensitive— often mistakenly conflated with the most desired and even some public labs in the United States were “outcome”—namely, crimes solved. The NDNAD reluctant to provide information. On the other hand, reports strive to provide the public with a more the kind of information needed for robust compari- complete picture of the DNA database’s contribu- son is, in many cases, not collected—or at least, tion to the criminal justice system, by including is not collated centrally in an accessible format. It such relevant metrics as the proportion of database is much more difficult to get an impression of the matches that result in case clearances by crime type. forensic DNA system in the United States than in England because there are more publicly available Introduction data and vastly fewer institutional actors in England. Many senior U.S. law enforcement leaders believe Therefore, in this report, we use the best avail- that the English criminal justice system has capital- able information to make preliminary comparisons ized more fully on the crime-fighting potential of between the two systems. This information confirms forensic DNA evidence than the U.S. criminal justice the basic perception that England does indeed have system.5 The perception is rooted in claims that Eng- faster turnaround times, little or no unmet demand land conducts forensic DNA analysis more quickly that would create an evidence backlog, and a data- and inexpensively and has a higher “hit” rate (i.e., a base that has yielded more DNA matches than the higher likelihood of getting a probative DNA profile U.S. DNA database. However, we argue that there is and of that profile being more likely to yield a match not enough information to contextualize and inves- in the database). In comparison, the perception of tigate the underlying causes of these differences and the U.S. approach to forensic DNA analysis is of a thus to build recommendations for action. relatively rigid, expensive, and bureaucratic system Thus, the aim of this report is to present available plagued by backlogs, longer turnaround times, and data about the differences in functioning of the two lower hit rates. Many believe, therefore, that there systems and to highlight the gaps in our knowledge are lessons from England that could be applied in that preclude further more meaningful (and policy- the United States to improve the speed and cost- relevant) analysis. effectiveness of the system and ultimately increase the number of serious crimes solved or prevented through Methodology and Approach the use of DNA analysis.

Load more

  34

Copy Link