1. Baton Rouge, 2003 Serial murderer: 5 murders in 18 months

2. Use of DNA in case… DNA dragnets: –“voluntary” samples –Disposition issue Development of racial profile from DNA –DNAprint genomics Suspect caught because his DNA was collected because he was suspect in another case and his DNA was matched to DNA from crime scene. Extensive criminal history

3. Issues State/society versus individual How to organize the state Equity

4. Individual vs State Surveillance: location and genetic Who should be subject to this surveillance? –Violent felons? –All felons? –Arrestees –Suspects? –Easily available… dragnets, databanks, etc –Everyone?

5. Equity: Who should be subject to this surveillance and why? Who should be subject to this surveillance? –Violent felons? All felons? Arrestees? Suspects? –Easily available samples? –Everyone? –Currently: in UK approx 1 in 10 men in database, and in US 1 in 50 men. Why? – Deprivation of rights vs probabilitistic logic (Kaye/Smith)

6. Genealogy as Investigative Tool: The case of Lynette White Stabbed 50 times on Valentine’s day, 1988

7. The case of Lynette White The Cardiff three But convictions were thrown out…

8. The case of Lynette White Case re-opened in 2000 …and spots of blood were found on skirting board.

9. The case of Lynette White DNA searched against the database. No matches. Examined “near-misses”: 600 people  70  a 14 year old born after murder DNA matched uncle of 14 year old, Jeffrey Gafoor

10. Genealogy as investigative tool One allele match per locus, Y chromosome, mtDNA matches Increased precision with increased number of loci FSS sells “familial searches” for 5000 pounds.

11. Genealogy as investigative tool How many people would under de facto surveillance? Legal issues under deprivation theory Upsets political balance

12. State/society vs individual Empowering the state to protect individuals Limiting the state’s ability to abuse individuals What is the architecture of trust? –Can’t depend on wrong doers to take pictures and videos of their acts

13. Constraining the state…

14. Constraining the State Disempower the state –Minimize/eliminate databanks/databases Regulating the state –Selectively disempower (e.g., sample retention) –Rules– for both people and technologies –Transparency Restructuring the state –Buffering forensic scientists –Institutionalizing “guardians of privacy”

15. Other big issues… Finality –Post-conviction: 143 exonerations –Statutes of limitations, “John Doe” warrants Reflection –Exonerations –People that should have been caught Behavior, genetics, and criminal justice

16. Pushing the conversation forward Picking up the baton from the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence What do we know? What do we need to know? What are the trade offs?