Execution flaws in Bunting's DNA

Ronald Mason

'DNA-profiling technology is not a panacea to crime solving'. This is the nauseating repetition from the minister of national security. He has clung to this because he has some, as yet-unrevealed reason to slow the implementation of DNA profiling which he, in his 2013 Sectoral Debate contribution, promised tabling within a few months. Let us state what the technology offers to the crime-fighting community.

DNA profiling can be a powerful tool in criminal investigations. Its success in the courtroom depends upon many factors, including:

(1) Proper handling of evidence.

(2) Careful analysis by an unbiased forensic laboratory.

(3) Fair and appropriate interpretation of the results.

(4) Accurate and effective reporting of results to judges and jurors.

When we correctly use DNA profiling, it can be effective to quickly eliminate a suspect, saving time and money in searches for perpetrators, provide compelling evidence to support a conviction and, most important, reduce the chance of a wrongful conviction. The University of Utah, in learn.genetics, goes on to explain how DNA can be used to identify an individual: "Almost every cell in our bodies contains DNA, the genetic material that programmes how cells work. Any two people share, on average, 99.9% of their DNA, meaning that only 0.1% of your DNA is unique to you! The only exception is identical twins, who share 100% of their DNA.

"Each human cell contains three billion DNA base pairs. Our unique DNA, 0.1% of three billion, amounts to three million base pairs. That's more than enough to provide a profile that accurately identifies a person.

"DNA is often left behind at a crime scene. It is present in all kinds of evidence, including blood, hair, skin, saliva, and semen. Scientists can analyse the DNA in evidence samples to see if it matches a suspect's DNA."

The above is predicated on the existence of a DNA database on which the sample will be matched. Minister Bunting will not bring the legislation for the creation of the required database. Creating the database requires the most minimal of invasion. A cotton swab on the inside of your mouth will collect enough DNA for this purpose. What is Minister Bunting weary of? Will he not volunteer to be the first provider of DNA? We collect fingerprints now. We collect mugshots now. We collect the most unreliable eyewitness identification now.

DNA profiling, as we know it today, was developed, thanks to two independent breakthroughs in molecular biology that occurred at the same time on different sides of the Atlantic. In the USA, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was invented by Kary Mullis, while in the UK, 'DNA fingerprinting' was being discovered by Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys at the University of Leicester.

DNA was first used to aid a criminal investigation by Professor Jeffreys in 1986. This investigation used DNA fingerprinting techniques to link semen stain samples, collected from two rapes/murders that had occurred three years apart in 1983 and 1986, in a small village in Leicestershire, UK. The probability of this match occurring by chance was calculated as 5.8 x 10.8. This result not only linked the two crimes and secured the conviction of the perpetrator, Colin Pitchfork, but also exonerated an innocent man implicated in the murders and led to the first mass screening project undertaken for DNA profiling in the world.

Explore Forum on March 29, 2014 provided the following rationale as it relates to DNA.

WHY USE DNA FINGERPRINTING?

"This process is used as one means of identification when an attacker or assailant has left some kind of bodily fluid or blood at the scene of a crime and when no visual identification is possible.

"DNA -or genetic- fingerprinting relies heavily on the principle that no two individuals share the same genetic code - except for identical twins, and statistically those elements of DNA that are examined and used to obtain a match will be unique.

"The process of DNA fingerprinting was first used during the 1980s and its application was quickly to become that of identification of suspects involved in serious crimes, including murder. The premise that most attackers or killers will leave some measure of bodily fluid at a crime scene - be it saliva, blood, semen or other such fluid - was quickly accepted as commonplace and it became a staple of many criminal investigators."

COLLECTING EVIDENCE

"DNA fingerprinting works on the basis that each individual's DNA structure - or genetic make-up - is unique and therefore cannot be forged, faked or altered in any way. Just like normal fingerprints taken from a suspect, they are so unique that only in the case of identical twins - as we have already mentioned - could they be the same.

"Statistically, there is a one-in-64-billion chance that any two unrelated individuals would have comparable DNA."

There are continual advances in forensic science that make these tests almost foolproof.

Minister Bunting is reported on April 9, 2014 to have told Parliament there will be no enacting soon and it may not be operationalised this legislative year. We, the people, must call for the removal of Peter Bunting from the national security portfolio, if he doesn't go. Why the hesitancy, Peter Bunting?

Ronald Mason is an immigration attorney-at-law and talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and nationsagenda@gmail.com.