Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005
November 5, 2005

The Honorable Arlen Specter
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary
SD-224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6275

The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
SD-152 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6275

Dear Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy,

The Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) is writing to express its opposition to the “DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005” that has been attached as an amendment to S. 1197,the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA).  We urge you to remove this amendment from the bill and disallow its attachment and enactment as part of any other legislation.[1]

CRG is a non-profit, non-governmental organization based in Cambridge, Massachusetts that works to foster public discussion about the social and ethical implications of genetic technologies. Founded in 1983, CRG works to conduct analysis, distribute accurate information, and represent the public interest on emerging issues in biotechnology. Our bimonthly magazine, GeneWatch, is the only publication of its kind in the nation.

At CRG, we believe that all people have the right to genetic privacy, including the right to prevent the taking or storing of bodily samples for genetic information without their voluntary informed consent. This principle is embodied in our “Genetic Bill of Rights,” a framework for establishing appropriate public standards and limits for biotechnology that we have promoted since April 2000.

While the very existence of forensic DNA databases stand in contrast to this principle, the amendment’s proposal to expand CODIS to include DNA profiles from persons who have been merely arrested or detained is especially problematic. Housing a person’s DNA in a criminal database undermines the principle of presumptive innocence and renders that person an automatic suspect for any future crime. While it has been argued, and generally accepted by the courts, that convicted felons forfeit this basic right of privacy in committing a crime, this cannot be said for people who are merely arrested or detained, many of whom are innocent.

We are also concerned that expanding the federal government’s authority to collect and store DNA from arrestees and detainees will encourage these authorities to engage in pretext arrests and groundless detainment as a means for obtaining a person’s DNA sample. Given the role of profiling in search and seizure techniques, such testing is also likely to exacerbate the persistent racial and anti-immigrant biases that appear to run throughout our criminal justice system.

Condoning arrestee and detainee testing at the federal level will encourage the states to do the same. Removing the current restrictions on states from being able to upload to CODIS DNA profiles derived from voluntarily submitted samples will also encourage states to hold onto samples obtained in “DNA dragnets” rather than destroying them where no match is made with the crime scene evidence. At the same time, citizens will become less willing to cooperate with law enforcement by providing DNA samples for elimination purposes, knowing that their profiles may wind up in CODIS.

Next, we are concerned that the astronomical financial and workload burdens placed on our already strained crime laboratories will worsen existing backlogs, impede law enforcement, and undermine quality control. In Truro, Massachusetts, law enforcement had a biological sample from the suspect in Christina Worthington’s murder for more than a year, but had not profiled it because they were instead processing samples obtained from the Truro community through a DNA dragnet. Human errors associated with the handling of the samples or the conduct or interpretation of the DNA analysis has already led to a few cases where innocent people have been jailed for crimes they could not have committed, and these scenarios are only likely to become more commonplace under the database amendment.

Finally, as an organization that is committed to increasing public dialogue around genetic technologies, we are especially dismayed that these sweeping changes to the law are being pushed through Congress without meaningful public involvement. Permanent retention of DNA from arrestees and detainees would mark a fundamental shift in the intent and purpose of the federal DNA database, and in the very least is a proposal deserving thorough consideration through public hearings and significant congressional deliberation.

For all of these reasons, we strongly urge you to remove the “DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005” from the final version of the VAWA legislation.  If you or your staff would like to speak with CRG representatives about our concerns regarding this legislation, please contact the CRG office at 617-868-0870.

Sincerely,

Sujatha Byravan, PhD
President, CRG

[1] For example, the House of Representatives has attached similar legislative language to HR 3132, the Children’s Safety Act of 2005.  This language should be opposed in all cases. [back to top]