1 / 53

Tim Schellberg tims@smithallinglane

Legislative Establishment of Comprehensive Forensic DNA Programs Lessons Learned from the United States and Europe October 5 , 2005 Brasilia, Brazil. Presented by: Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Tacoma, WA (253) 627-1091 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 London 0 (44) 798 953 8386. Tim Schellberg

thais
Download Presentation

Tim Schellberg tims@smithallinglane

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Legislative Establishment of Comprehensive Forensic DNA ProgramsLessons Learned from the United States and EuropeOctober 5, 2005Brasilia, Brazil Presented by: Smith Alling Lane, P.S. Tacoma, WA (253) 627-1091 Washington, DC (202) 258-2301 London 0 (44) 798 953 8386 Tim Schellberg tims@smithallinglane.com

  2. Smith Alling Lane Government Affairs Division www.smithallinglane.com Tacoma, Washington Washington, DC London, England

  3. Our Sponsor Foster City, CA Produces over 80% of the World’s DNA Sequencers and Reagents

  4. Offender DNA Databases • SOLVE MORE CRIME • PREVENT MORE CRIME • EXONERATE THE INNOCENT • COST / BENEFIT

  5. Legislative Role In Creating Successful DNA Programs Creation of a DNA Database Law • Success is contingent on a robust DNA database • Most democracies require legislation prior to implementing a DNA database

  6. England and Wales Europe Case Studies United States

  7. Case Study IUnited States

  8. U.S. DNA Database Legislative Time-Line 1988 - Colorado Legislature becomes the first to enact laws requiring DNA from sex offenders 1990 - Virginia Legislature becomes first to enact an all crimes (minus minor crimes) DNA law 1991 - Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) establishes guidelines on state sex offender DNA database laws - FBI promotes the passage of sex offender DNA database laws - FBI develops CODIS concept 1994 - Congress enacts the DNA Identification Act -- CODIS is formally created

  9. U.S. Time-Line (continued) 1996 - Most states have sex offender DNA database statutes 1997 - A majority of states focus on expanding DNA database laws to include violent crimes and burglary 2000 - Congress enacts the DNA Backlog Elimination Act (appropriates $140 million to states for DNA analysis) 1999 - 50 states have enacted sex offender DNA database laws - 6 state DNA databases include all convictions (minus minor crimes) - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Criminal Defense Bar organize to oppose all felons legislation 2001 - Preliminary data shows the success of Virginia’s DNA database - ACLU virtually disappears from all crimes (minus minor crimes) - A surge in all crimes legislation occurs - 7 more states enact laws, for a total of 14 states with all crimes (minus minor crimes)

  10. U.S Time-Line (continued) 2003 - 9 additional states pass all crimes (minus minor crimes) legislation, for a total of 31 - Large federal appropriation pending - President’s DNA Initiative is introduced • 2005 - A total of 43 states pass have passed all crimes (minus minor crimes) legislation • - President’s DNA Initiative of $1 Billion begins implementation • - California implements comprehensive arrestee DNA testing law • - A total of 5 states have arrestee testing laws. A push for nationwide arrestee testing laws begins

  11. United States Database Size • 3 Federal and 50 state databases • Common themes exist, but all 50 states have different database legislation • 2.4 million offender samples • 114,000 crime scene samples • 43 States collect from all convicted offenders, except minor crimes • Remaining 7 States collect from all violent crimes and burglary • Most of the remaining 7 States should be collecting from all convicted offenders by 2007 • 5 States DNA from arrested offenders • No purging required for convicted offenders

  12. United States Funding • States fund most of the costs • Federal government operates central database • Local governments pay very little • $1 Billion federal investment through “President Bush’s DNA Initiative” Problems • Backlogs are significant – Over 500,000 casework samples are in backlog (Attorney General’s Backlog Report) • No-suspect collection and casework is not very aggressive – but getting better • Lack of Law Enforcement Training – They are slow to understand the power of an offender/suspect database

  13. U.S. State DNA Database Statutes(As of September 2005) STATE Sex Crimes Murder All Violent Crimes Burglary Drug Crimes All Felons Juveniles Some Misde-meanors Arrested / Indicted Jailed Offenders Community Corrections Retroactive Jail & Prison Retroactive Probation & Parole Alabama             Alaska             Arizona             Arkansas           California             Colorado        Connecticut            Delaware         Florida            Georgia         Hawaii           Idaho          Illinois           Indiana          Iowa           Kansas             Kentucky       Louisiana             *

  14.  Michigan            Minnesota            Mississippi               Missouri       Montana          Nebraska      Nevada         New Hampshire          New Jersey             New Mexico            New York          North Carolina          North Dakota           Ohio            Oklahoma          Oregon             Pennsylvania           

  15. Vermont            Virginia             Washington            West Virginia          Wisconsin          Wyoming            TOTALS 50 50 49 49 46 43 33 26 5 48 48 37 23

  16. 2000 - 7 States 2001 - 12 States 2002 - 21 States 2003 – 30 States 2004 – 37 States Growth To All Convicted Crimes, except minor crimes 2005 – 43 States

  17. Arrestee Legislation Enacted arrestee testing laws (5) (Accounts for 25% of US population)

  18. Enacted Arrestee DNA Testing All arrests some minor crimes No expungement requirement No sample destruction requirement Some violent felony arrests now, all arrests (minus minor crimes) in five years Expungement required No sample destruction requirement absent expungement Certain felony indictments, or upon arrest if previous conviction for certain offenses Expungement required Sample destruction required Violent arrests with probable cause Expungement required Sample destruction required Various violent and sex crime arrests, plus burglary, upon finding of probable cause Expungement required Sample destruction required

  19. Virginia “Cold Hits” on the DNA DatabaseAll Drug Offenders to Type of Crime Solved

  20. Virginia “Cold Hits” on the DNA DatabaseForgery to Type of Crime Solved

  21. Virginia “Cold Hits” on the DNA DatabaseJuveniles to Type of Crime Solved

  22. Your Legislation Controls the “Hit Rates” Estimated Hit Rates Based on United States Data Sex offenders 5% Sex offenders & Violent offenders 10% Sex offenders, Violent offenders and Property crimes 20% All crimes, minus minor crimes 40% All crimes 50% All arrestees 70%

  23. Privacy Issues Overview • Not much concern for convicted offenders • Significant concern for arrested offenders Legislative Provisions • Purge the sample, keep the profile • Data handling protocals • Penalties for misuse of data • Saliva Swabs instead of Blood Future Privacy Issues • Family member hits

  24. 8 offenders 60 unnecessary victims The Power to Prevent Crime: A New Focus in the United States Chicago study of 8 offenders 60 preventable violent crimes, including 30 rapes and 22 murders Offenders accounted for 21 prior arrests, only 7 of which were violent felony arrests – two-thirds of prior arrests were for non-violent felonies.

  25. Cost Benefits of DNA Databases • Ray Wickenheiser Report www.dnaresource.com/New_Folder/DNA/Business%20Case%20for%20Forensic%20DNA.pdf $Billions saved to government and society by having comprehensive DNA database and casework program

  26. Case Study II England and Wales

  27. England and Wales Database Size • One national database - 3 million offender samples • Operated by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) • Legislation requires permanent databasing of all people arrested • 234,500 Crime Scene samples • Hit Rate is current 55% and expected to rise Funding • Strong financial support from national government to operate FSS • Local governments also invest heavily in casework, by reimbursing FSS for casework Collection and casework • Aggressive crime scene casework • Adds between 1,000 to 1,500 profiles to the crime scene database each week • Over 1,700 crime scene to crime scene or suspect to crime scene hits per week

  28. DNA Analysis Performed by the FSS 2001 - 2002

  29. Crime Scenes Matching One or More Individuals

  30. 50 40 30 1999 20 2000 2001 10 0 Burglary Drugs Assault Murder Sexual Offense Turn Around Time (in Days) by Type of Case

  31. Nationally burglary and car crime has been cut by 40% A partnership between Police, Forensic Science and the Courts to process Criminals DNA DB Match Report Arrest Charge Crime reported Sample submission SOCO attends Courts process cost effective More ‘Guilty’ pleas Volume Crime Program DNA Analysis Court Processes Outcome < 3 days < 2days < 1day 3 days 7 - 21 days Value measured

  32. Case Study III Europe

  33. Europe See New EU Report for Most recent Data Current Database Laws • Laws have little in common • No coordination • Extensive purging required The Future of European Databases • Strong recognition that the future is suspect databases • Effort underway to create a European Union Database standard • European Union evaluating a mechanism to facilitate the sharing of profiles

  34. DNA Collection from Convicted Offenders

  35. Convicted Offender Criteria • Austria - Any recordable offense • Belgium – Specific offenses against persons • Czech Republic – all convicted offenders except misdemeanors • England & Wales – Any recordable offense • France - Specific offenses • Finland – Specific violent offenses • Germany - Specific offenders and with court order • Hungary – More than 5 years of prison, plus other specific offenses • Netherlands - More than 4 years of prison, but only if collected during investigation • Norway – Serious crimes with at least 2 years of prison • Sweden – More than 2 years of prison • Switzerland – More than 1 year of prison

  36. DNA Collection from Suspects Suspected or arrested for any recordable offense Suspected or arrested for severe crimes or sex assault

  37. Suspect Criteria • Austria –Any recordable offense • Czech Republic – May be collected only loaded on database if charged • England & Wales – Any recordable offense • France - Specific offenses • Finland – More than 1 year of prison, plus other specified offenses • Germany - Specific offenders and with court order • Hungary – More than 5 years of prison, plus other specific offenses • Netherlands - More than 4 years of prison and with court order • Northern Ireland – Any recordable offenses • Scotland - Anyone lawfully arrested or detained. Criteria used by police is: sex crimes, crimes of violence, burglary, attempts and most thefts • Sweden – All suspects • Switzerland – Any suspicious person with regard to a crime

  38. Convicted Offender Profile Removal No Removal Removed after specified time

  39. Convicted Offender Removal Criteria • Austria –Indefinite • Belgium – 10 years after death • Czech Republic – Subject to 3 year review, removed after 80 • England & Wales – Indefinite • Finland – 1 year after death • France – 40 years after sentence, or until the age of 80 • Germany - Reviewed after 10 years for adults, 5 years for juveniles. Indefinite retention possible. • Hungary – Until acquitted or charges abandoned • Netherlands - 20 yrs if convicted of a crime with 4 - 6 year sentence, 30 yrs if convicted of a crime with sentence of more than 6 yrs. • Norway – 2 years after death, or upon finding of innocence • Sweden – 10 years after sentence is served • Switzerland – After 30 years, if no further convictions, or upon death

  40. No Removal Removed when acquitted or charges dropped Suspect Profile Removal

  41. Suspect Removal Criteria • Austria –When acquitted • England & Wales – Indefinite • Finland – 1 year after notification of acquittal or charges dropped • France – Upon request from prosecutor or suspect if not convicted or no evidence of an offense • Germany - Reviewed after 10 years for adults, 5 years for juveniles. Indefinite retention possible. • Hungary – 20 years after sentences expires • Netherlands - 20 yrs if convicted of a crime with 4 - 6 year sentence, 30 yrs if convicted of a crime with sentence of more than 6 yrs. • Northern Ireland - No legal requirement for expungement. Profiles of those dead or over 100 years of age are removed. • Scotland – Indefinitely unless acquitted or charges dropped • Sweden – Saved until allowed to register the suspect as a convicted offender • Switzerland – Upon exclusion as a suspect, death, or five years after sentence completed

  42. Other Countries • Resources EU Report Interpol DNA Questionnaire • Established and growing offender databases (Other than US, UK and Europe): Australia New Zealand Canada South Africa • Working towards passing offender database legislation: • Confirmed Japan China Israel India Brazil • Unconfirmed South Korea Russia Malaysia Argentina Taiwan Chile Philippines Mexico Thailand

  43. Lessons Learned for Brazil

  44. Lessons Learned for Brazil • Create a database law that maximizes the “hit rate” • Make database a priority • Include all suspects, not just convicted offenders • If privacy problems arise for including suspects, destroy suspect sample after profiling • Avoid purging profiles from database • Include juveniles • Include all categories of incarceration • Do not take incremental steps • Retroactive Provision: Include convicted offenders that are currently incarcerated or under supervision. Add them immediately. • Utilize private laboratory outsourcing to reduce initial costs • Use most efficient collection method (saliva swabs)

  45. Lessons Learned for Brazil • Address the Backlog • Understand the politics of the backlog • Assess the backlog • Rapes and Murders first • Focus on old suspects

  46. Lessons Learned for Brazil • Collection Strategies • Implement “Rape Victim DNA Program” • Instant results • Generates strong public support • National intensive effort to make law enforcement aware of DNA • Utilize free DNA collection training guides produced by the United States and England/Wales • Avoid testing delay: Consider outsourcing more basic cases, such as Rape Kits

  47. Lessons Learned for Brazil • Funding strategies • Offender/suspect database: Collect now - analyze later • Offender/suspect database: Offender pays for inclusion costs • Casework: England and Wales model - Local government pays for casework • Casework: United States - Large grant program from federal government

More Related