In Fighting Crime, How Wide Should a Genetic Net Reach

          This past month, Natasha Singer published another article corresponding to her article she published last year in the New York Times. Her new article is called, “In Fighting Crime, How Wide Should a Genetic Net Reach?” This article discussed a new type of DNA analysis called “familial searching”. Familial searching is a process by which forensics labs try to match DNA from a crime scene to the DNA of convicted felons who may not have committed that particular crime. The reason for doing this is because the lab was unable to find a direct match to a suspect and is now trying to widen their search and hopefully find a convicted felon who is a relative of the person who actually committed the crime. The article follows a case called the “Grim Sleeper” serial murder. In this case, the lab could not find a direct DNA match. The lab then searched a data base that had 1.3 million DNA samples and came up with a list of 200 partial hits. They applied scientific procedures to examine Y chromosomes and came up with a match to someone who was the son of the murderer. There is a debate however, about whether or not this new aspect of genetic analysis infringes on privacy laws, especially if the forensics lab cannot narrow down their analysis to a single suspect. If that is the case, the article asks whether or not police should have, “...free rein to knock on the doors of people on a partial DNA match list, many of whom may not have anything to do with the unsolved crime?’’ This scientific technique is currently used in Britain, however, in the United States some people question the type of guidelines or laws that need to be enacted so that the science can be used.

I favor using this new type of science. I think that when someone murders another person the police should be given some leeway to use tactics that could lead to finding the guilty person. DNA testing and genetic analysis is very reliable. If the forensics lab can narrow down a list of suspects by finding those suspects relatives it is highly probable that I will lead them to the person who actually committed the crime. Because there is a high level of certainty in the DNA that links relatives to one another, crimes may be solved a lot more quickly. I also do not see the harm in widening the search to a larger data base. What is the harm in having police interview a broader group of people who could help solve a crime? Don’t they do that now anyway and with much less certainty about the people they are speaking with? I don’t understand why the American Civil Liberties Union would object to allowing the police to do their homework. 

In Fighting Crime, How Wide Should  a Genetic Net Reach