Every criminal that the United States fails to convict on first offence goes
on to commit, on average, an additional six crimes. It's a chilling thought,
and it sits at the heart of one of the most pressing issues to face forensic
science today; the DNA backlog.
The scale of the backlog problem has reached frightening proportions, with
the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics indicating a 73% increase in case work,
and a resulting 135% increase in case work backlogs, between 1997 and 2000
alone. And we're not talking petty crime either, with many of the unanalyzed
DNA samples relating to sexual assault and murder cases. So what's at the root
of it all?
The DNA backlog is currently affected by two key areas: case work
sample backlogs from crime scenes, victims, and suspects, and convicted offender
backlogs, from existing offenders that are either incarcerated or under supervision.
Backlogs across both areas are growing substantially but without a related
growth and expansion of forensic laboratories, the USA has been unable to cope.
AN EXPANDING PROBLEM
As crime rates increase, this is an issue that is unlikely to dissipate, and
potential legislation such as California's Proposition 69 will only magnify
the problem.
Set to come into effect as of January 2009, the proposition
will present the criminal justice system with the added pressure of DNA samples
from arrestees, as well as convicted criminals. In short, the United States
finds itself in a ‘Catch-22’ situation: on the one hand, the
more DNA samples collected the more potential to solve crimes; on the other
hand, the more samples collected, the more the backlog will grow. The U.S. is
not alone in this challenge. The DNA backlog is increasingly becoming a global
issue, with DNA centers in Australia also suffering serious backlogs.
ACROSS THE POND
Interestingly, the current plight of the U.S. backlog follows a similar pattern
to what occurred in the United Kingdom. The challenge now is to utilize the
knowledge and best practice available in the UK, here at the Forensic Science
Service, and on a wider scale, and to use it to assist state investigators to
tackle the backlog, efficiently and effectively, avoiding any prolonged and
painful learning curves.
When it comes to DNA processing, the figures in
the UK have improved dramatically, with over 0.5 million samples processed
a year, each within a three to five day timeframe. And as analyzed samples
have increased, our own FSS staff numbers have decreased as greater automation
and efficiencies have been identified. But it hasn't always been that way.
The UK's national DNA database is extremely sophisticated. Following its
launch in 1995, police and other justice bodies realized its full benefits
and here at the Forensic Science Service where we looked after the database,
we were bombarded with samples to the figure of 40,000 in the first year. But
with a new system, came new problems, and within two years a backlog of some
135,000 samples had accumulated.
MANAGE YOUR PROCESSES
Eliminating the backlog clearly represents the most pressing problem, and technical
understanding, management of information, and clear ownership are all critical
issues. We were able to address the initial DNA backlog by re-evaluating
our procedures, and seeking out the inefficiencies. It was only when we understood
where bottlenecks and delays were occurring that we could accurately address
them. This was achieved by reviewing and challenging our process and asking
the appropriate questions: Is the current system fit for purpose? Do all
staff members have the necessary level of training and competence?
From this
review it was apparent that a backlog challenge of this scale could not
be run through a traditional forensic lab with analysts taking samples from
submission all the way through to interpretation. The only way to effectively
manage the demand was to treat the process as a production line with staff
responsible for specific parts of the process. Using this approach the
FSS
was able to increase staff levels with people who had the necessary skills,
implement a 24/7shift pattern, and re-train existing staff where necessary.
By modelling the revised procedures, we knew there would be a short-term
increase in turn around times and through effective planning we were able
to manage expectations of the police and Home Office, the UK Government
department managing the criminal justice system. We now have a specialist group
of in-house
trainers that can cope quickly and efficiently with high demand.
BEING PREPARED: NOW AND IN THE FUTURE
The DNA backlog in the U.S. will continue to be affected by external developments
such as changes in legislation and policy: Proposition 69 is a good example
of this.
Back in 2001, the UK underwent a similar change in legislation,
resulting in the power to retain DNA profiles if a suspect is acquitted.
This, combined with a £300 million (approx $600 million at today’s
exchange rate) Government investment into a DNA Expansion Program between
April 2000 and March 2005, resulted in demand for DNA analysis doubling in
just six months. In April 2004, the authorities in the UK then gained the power
to sample suspects on arrest, and retain their profile, even when not charged.
The result? Half a million submissions a year.
For us, managing the information
and the processes remained — and still remains — critical but
as the scale of the DNA backlog developed, our approach was also forced to
develop. Thanks to various developments in technology and approach, we are
now able to process each of the 0.5 million samples submitted every year,
within a three to five day turnaround period, and with just 65 staff on the
DNA lines. The opportunities are there for the United States to achieve similar
or better.
AN AUTOMATED PROCESS
Automation and the use of expert software systems present one solution that
we are aware U.S. forensic scientists are beginning to investigate. Over
the last ten years, the FSS has worked to develop robotics and wider technology
to ensure that we are able to manage whatever level of samples we are presented
with. From this experience we have learned a valuable lesson: it's not just about
the technology but also about how you integrate it with the rest of the process,
and feed it efficiently.
Using robotic instruments to remove mundane duties
for staff has proved hugely successful, reducing the margin for error and
contamination. But the use of robotics did represent a real leap of faith
for our forensics teams – quality of programming is critical, and although
we were using existing systems, we had to spend considerable time and resource
designing protocols that told the machines to extract DNA, measure and amplify
it as required to our forensic quality standards. As a result however we
have been able to process an increased number of samples, in turn improving
match rates. And because we can often match DNA from serious crimes to specific
criminals originally recognized as committing minor offences, as the statistics
show, we are able to help the UK police quickly identify, apprehend, and
successfully prosecute likely suspects.
The same could be said of the actual
interpretation of DNA profiles, which has also been greatly improved by
technology, namely the use of expert systems. In simple terms, these expert
systems are
computer software that applies a number of scientific rules to the profile
generated. After a series of tests, they proved more accurate than human
analysts: something which was tested and proved over some 50,000 samples.
The benefits of this in terms of quality, speed, and efficiency are impressive,
and nowadays only 15 per cent of each batch is rechecked by a human analyst.
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL BENEFITS
Operationally then, the parallels between the U.S. and UK are clear, and we
hope that we can work in partnership with forensics teams in the United States
to share and assess our experiences and assist in the future reduction of
the backlog in the United States. But when operating in a world of science
and analysis, it would be all too easy to forget the real impetus for change – and
that's the safety and well-being of generations now, and in the future. The
case example of the UK's Yorkshire Ripper Hoaxer however is a sobering reminder
of the real link between backlog, convictions, and public safety.
In the
1970s, 50 year old John Humble, also known as the Yorkshire Ripper Hoaxer,
sent three letters and an audiotape to police, claiming that he was the
UK's infamous Yorkshire Ripper murderer. His actions led police to concentrate
on a false line of inquiry, leaving the real Yorkshire Ripper to go on
to
murder three more women before he was finally caught in 1981. Thanks to advancements
in DNA technology, John Humble has recently been tracked down, and sentenced
to eight years in prison, after pleading guilty to four counts of perverting
the course of justice. But what has this got to do with the DNA backlog?
Most
of the original letters and envelopes were subjected to extensive chemical
fingerprint testing at the time, but the radioactive sulphur dioxide used left
them severely blackened and unsuitable for further testing. A few small pieces
of one of the envelopes were retained by the Forensic Science Service. When
the investigation was reopened by West Yorkshire police, it was possible to
examine the fragments using the Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA technique. This can
obtain a DNA profile from a sample expected to contain very few cells – even
if it is too small to be visible to the naked eye.
THE POWER OF THE NATIONAL DNA DATABASE
The Hoaxer, John Humble was already logged on the National DNA database, as
a result of a drunken driving charge years before. So when the LCN tests
yielded a DNA profile and this was searched against the National DNA database,
we were able to produce a single hit to a man in Northumbria, leading to
John Humble's arrest and imprisonment. Had the database not been such a powerful
investigative tool, and had the DNA backlog not already been addressed in
the UK, he might still be on our streets today.
If there is one example that really brings home the social side of technological
and legislative advancements then this is it – and there is a clear lesson
to be learned. By addressing backlog issues, and supporting the justice system
in either convicting or exonerating suspects, forensics teams in the UK and
the U.S. alike have the power to help investigators solve major crimes, and
make a real difference to the safety and well-being of our communities.
Putting
any political and moral issues aside, the facts remain all too clear: the
law in several states is set to change and with it, comes the greatest challenge
that its forensics and law enforcement teams have ever faced. Address it,
well
equipped, and well armed, and with the lessons already learned in the UK,
and it provides an incredible opportunity to put some of the most dangerous
of
today's criminals behind bars. Fail to do so however and the effects could
be nothing short of catastrophic.
Richard Pinchin is Head of U.S. Operations, iforensic –a division
of Forensic Science Service Ltd. He holds a degree in Biology from Nottingham
University and is the author of several papers. Richard joined the Forensic
Science Service Central Research Establishment at Aldermaston UK in 1988. In
the late 1990s the concept of Intelligence Led Policing and the UK National
Intelligence Model led to the formation of the FSS Forensic Intelligence Bureau
which Richard managed. www.iforensic.co.uk
