Those of us who have been part of the forensic DNA community for the past 15
years have waited a long time for this. We knew it would come. We knew theoretically
and anecdotally, that it was true. We only needed to look across the Atlantic
to see evidence of it. But now, finally, an independent and respected research
institution has substantively proven it. The investment in DNA technology to
solve volume crime makes tremendous sense. More to the point, it has become
a responsibility.
In 2005, police departments from Phoenix, Arizona; Orange
County,
California; Los Angeles, California; Denver, Colorado; and Topeka, Kansas
began their participation as demonstration sites for the National Institute
of Justice
sponsored Urban Institute DNA Field Experiment. Each agency was to collect
biological evidence from five hundred crime scenes. Those cases were then
randomly split
in half with 250 being investigated though only traditional investigative
means, while the other 250 were investigated through traditional means AND
by having
the biological evidence in the case tested for DNA. In approaching the investigations
in this manner, it could be concluded that any difference in outcomes would
be attributable to DNA testing.
There were certain variables between test sites.
For example, Phoenix and Los Angeles outsourced samples while the other sites
performed DNA analysis in-house. Some sites utilized forensic technicians for
evidence collection while others allowed for the collection of crime scene
evidence
by patrol officers. And while there were expected variations in the results
among the five sites, the overall conclusions of the study have tremendous
implications
for how DNA is, and should be, used in the United
States.
The study’s main findings are that:
Property crime cases where
DNA evidence is processed have more than twice as many suspects identified,
twice as many suspects arrested, and more than twice as many cases accepted
for prosecution
compared with traditional
investigation;
DNA is at least five times as likely to result in a
suspect identification compared with fingerprints;
• Suspects identified by DNA had at least twice as many prior felony
arrests and convictions as those identified
by traditional investigation;
Blood evidence results in better case outcomes
than other biological evidence, particularly evidence from items that were
handled or touched;
Biological material collected by forensic technicians is
no more likely to result in a suspect being identified than biological
material collected by patrol officers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SUSPECTS IN HIGH VOLUME PROPERTY
CRIME – THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RECIDIVISM
In a confirmation of smaller, previous
studies by agencies such as the Chicago and Miami-Dade Police Departments, the
Urban Institute examined the criminal histories of individuals identified through
CODIS and those arrested without
a CODIS identification. In general, the Institute’s
conclusion was that “… suspects identified within the test cohort
(CODIS) were significantly more likely to have additional prior felony convictions,
more prior felony arrests, more prior misdemeanor convictions, and more prior
misdemeanor
arrests.” Specifically, in CODIS identification cases, suspects averaged
5.6 prior felony arrests, 2.9 prior felony convictions, 3.0 prior misdemeanor
arrests, and 2.2 prior misdemeanor convictions.
While the statistical research
on criminal recidivism is somewhat outdated, that research that does exist
clearly indicates that volume crime such as burglary and car theft are among
the most
recidivistic. Research from the Department of Justice in 1994 indicated that
burglars and car thieves represented the most repetitive criminals. Unfortunately,
burglary also happens to be a crime with one of the lowest arrest rates. According
to the National Crime Victimization Survey of 2005, over 3.5 million burglaries
were committed in the United States. Unfortunately, according to the FBI only
298,835 arrests for burglary
were made during that same period — resulting in an arrest rate of only
8.5 percent. In other words, one of our most recidivistic crimes also suffers
from one of our lowest solve rates.
Criminal justice experts also recognize that
offenders
who commit burglary and car theft also tend to
escalate the level and types of crime they commit. The Bureau
of Justice Statistics estimates the average (mean) property loss
from a household burglary in 2005 was approximately $1,500.
(And that does not account for, or include, the immeasurable
psychological trauma that is caused by home invasion crimes.)
Given the recidivistic nature of property crimes, total cost from
their crimes may be many times this amount. Therefore, arresting
burglars using DNA as part of the criminal investigation
— burglars who otherwise would not be caught and brought to
justice — clearly has the potential to prevent future property and other
crimes.
But the potential that burglars will commit more serious, violent crimes
is perhaps the greatest danger posed by property crime offenders. Offenders
have demonstrated their potential to engage in more serious, violent behavior
making
DNA analysis of property crime evidence not just an option, but a matter of
necessity.
In the United Kingdom, where the application of the forensic DNA database
has been a reality for years, an average month yields the identification of
over
2,500 motor vehicle, property, and drug crimes. That is in contrast to their
solving 15 murders and 45 rapes through the database in the same time frame.
The British call their approach to databasing a “strategic shift that
had taken place after the development of forensic intelligence
databases that identify suspects rather than provide evidence
for the courts.” In other words, they have changed their investigative
process in a major and substantial way. Investigations are now driven by DNA
and other databases rather than DNA being considered simply a better piece of
evidence.
The NIJ study proves not only that this can be done in the United States,
but that it should be done. The important corollary to the number of crimes
we can solve by using DNA in investigations is the number of crimes we can
prevent.
In no criminal justice dynamic is that correlation clearer and more significant
than in what is now proven to be the effectiveness of DNA and DNA databases
at solving property crime.
Chris Asplen is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and
local prosecutor specializing in the prosecution of sex crime and child abuse.
He was also formerly the Executive Director of the National Commission on the
Future of DNA Evidence for the U.S. Department of Justice and Director of the
DNA Unit for the National District Attorneys Association. Currently, he consults
with local, state, and foreign governments and law enforcement agencies on
the use of forensic DNA technology. Chris is also a member of the Crime Victim
Bar
Association. He may be reached at
casplen@gth-gov.com.
