No to DNA criminal databases!
[Workers Power Australia, May-July 2000]
During the early hours hours of New Year’s day, 1998, a 93-year-old resident of the remote New South Wales town of Wee Waa, was assaulted and raped in her own home.
This horrifying crime, which was only recently solved, sent shock waves through Wee Waa. Previously trusting residents now lock their doors and windows, and set booby traps for would-be attackers.
Frustrated by their inability to identify the woman’s attacker, police issued a plea for every one of the 600 men living in Wee Waa to supply a DNA sample. It is the first time in Australia that police have organised a mass voluntary DNA screening to catch a criminal.
The DNA sampling took place on the weekend of April 8-9, and according to Wee Waa police resulted in all but a dozen or so of Wee Waa’s men coming forward to have their DNA tested.
Wee Waa residents came out in sup-port of the police operation, though some were sceptical about whether it would identify the rapist. They were assured that any saliva tests that did not match the DNA of the rapist would be destroyed and would not be used to solve other crimes.
By Tuesday April 11, Detective Inspector Paul Mayger from Crime Agencies, the NSW police force's serious crime group, announced that of the dozen or so men who had refused to give saliva samples, up to eight fitted the profile of the rapist, a male aged 18 to 45 years.
Assumed guilty The fact that some residents refused to offer saliva samples exposes one serious flaw with voluntary DNA testing: despite what residents and police might think, it will not only be the guilty party that refuses to submit to DNA testing.
At least 7 – if not all 8 - of the men who refused testing and who fit the pro- file, are innocent. But with voluntary DNA testing, there is a real sense in which all 8 of these men will be assumed to be potentially guilty, under-mining the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
DNA testing is fast catching on in Australia, as state and federal governments seek to show that they are 'getting tough on crime'.
Despite opposition from civil libertarians, the Coalition is now considering the establishment of a national criminal tracking system – CrimTrac – which will be available to all Australian police branches, and which will be able to be used to match information from suspected criminals with unsolved crimes.
Using the latest technologies, Crim-Trac will store information on the DNA records of convicted criminals, as well as genetic information recovered from crime scenes. The system will also include a register of fingerprints, apprehended and domestic violence orders, firearms licences, and stolen vehicles.
Declaring their open support for the CrimTrac proposal, the Liberal Party has stated that through this measure police will be able to ‘solve more crimes quicker and build safer and stronger communities’.
DNA testing has spurred reassessments of the entire criminal justice system in the US.
It has been heralded by some as the route to freedom for innocents wrongly accused.
More specifically, the use of DNA in the US has shed new light on corrupt policing and the fabrication of scientific evidence.
DNA evidence has led to the freeing of 99 prisoners in California, after it helped expose a police corruption rack-et involving the manufacture of prose-cutions to inflate conviction statistics.
And in January the Governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions, after 13 death row inmates were cleared of their crimes following DNA testing.
Elsewhere in the US and across the world, the innocent victims of false accusations and erroneous charges – often the result of corruption - have been released after serving years in prison.
Predictably, it is these results of DNA testing, and the alleged capacity of a national DNA data bank to solve crimes and get criminals off the streets, that Conservative governments in the US and Australia are focusing on.
The reality, however, is somewhat different.
DNA testing is a cynical ‘quick fix’ solution embraced by governments who know that being seen to be tough on crime is a sure-fire vote-getter; perfect for securing the all-important man-date of the predominantly middle-class, crime-concerned swinging voter.
While it is true that DNA testing has the potential to liberate wrongly convicted prisoners, it has a greater potential to strengthen the state's capacities for monitoring and repressing its population.
For example, CrimTrac would effectively make all those convicted of crimes, including minor crimes like petty property theft, suspects in all other crimes; not because they are genuine suspects, but simply because their DNA is on file.
Prior offenders would not be accorded the legal protection of the assumption of innocence, but would effectively be guilty until proven innocent.
Furthermore, this contradicts the basic legal and democratic right that once offenders have paid their fine or 'done their time' they are regarded as innocent of other crimes, and their full democratic rights are restored.
According to the Liberal Party’s policy on the matter, even those not guilty of having ever committed a crime will have their information stored within the CrimTrac database system: legal, licensed firearms owners will have their information screened every time a crime is investigated! What is more, there is no guarantee that those who are falsely charged of crimes that they did not commit, will have their DNA information destroyed.
A national DNA database will dramatically enhance state surveillance, by increasing the amount of information that the state has access to and control of.
There is absolutely no guarantee that with such information in the control of the state, the prospect of police tampering with evidence will have been eliminated.
DNA investigators can be bribed to yield false evidence which, in the case of DNA evidence, will be cloaked in the guise of ‘incontrovertibility’ and infallibility.
Sensitive DNA information – perhaps your increased risk of developing breast cancer, Huntington’s disease or heart disease - could also be leaked or sold off to insurance companies, to raise insurance premiums or make it impossible for you to obtain a life insurance policy.
The boss has your DNA The danger also exists that DNA information may be sold off to potential bosses who seek confidential information about prospective employees, such as their prior convictions or their degree of risk of epilepsy.
If a potential boss can – through corrupt or, perhaps later, legitimate means - independently obtain the information that you have a prior conviction for a crime, then your chances of employment will be reduced. If your current boss obtains such information about you, then you may find yourself the tar-get of dismissal or lay-off in the next round of restructuring.
The bottom line is this: if we have good reason to beware of state and police corruption now, why think that a DNA data bank would make us any safer? DNA data banks ultimately mean greater power in the hands of the state. And increased power in the hands of capitalist states is not something that socialists or progressive people welcome.
Because of these dangers, socialists oppose national DNA-based programmes for ‘crime fighting’. Like any-thing else crime is a class issue, with the vast majority of crime being offences against property; and the vast majority of 'criminals' being those from working class backgrounds.
The Crim-Trac data base would be a further weapon in the armoury of the ruling class and its state, in policing the working class. As such we are against it.
Despite this, we are not against the collection of DNA information itself.
The potential health benefits of confidential DNA testing and screening, when used strictly for medical purposes, are clear. DNA testing to identify risk factors in the development of disease or health problems can help us to make more informed decisions about our lifestyles, employment options, and child-bearing.
But we oppose the storage of the DNA of those convicted of crimes, in data banks controlled and accessed by the state and national police force. We oppose them because we fight for less – not more – power in the wrong hands.
And power in the hands of the state and its armed forces like the police, is power in the wrong hands.
As interest grows in the use of DNA testing to solve crime, it is crucial to consider not only the alleged benefits of DNA testing, but its possible dangers.
