Reflection Six

This weeks article addresses DNA testing in legal cases, and whether or not it promotes equality. Determining the equality of DNA testing is a complicated matter which brings to rise questions about the nature of equality within the legal system itself, such as the reliability and aptitude of public defendants and how the actual verdict of a case may be determined by the skill of the legal counsel rather than guilt or innocence.

There is both an optimistic and pessimistic way to view DNA testing, according to the article, the optimistic viewpoint tells us that some technologies, such as DNA testing “level the playing field” for those in court cases, whereas the pessimistic views DNA technology as an “enhanced means of social control.” Each side makes it’s own argument, the “level playing field” ideal allows for evidence based on science that removes inherent bias and can help the jury decide on a verdict without prejudice. The pessimistic view questions the nature of the system within which this technology is used, and raises the question of whether the technology will contribute to furthering systematic bias.

Personally, I agree more with the optimistic view,  and that the technology will contribute to more equality. Inherently, the technology itself is not biased. It is simply a means for deriving evidence. In situations where a defendant is innocent, I don’t see where DNA testing could be anything but beneficial as it can do nothing but further the case for innocence. When a party is guilty, it can help establish this without a doubt. As the article points out, DNA testing only applies to a certain minority of cases, and even when it does apply it is often underutilized. I think this is more of a statement about the speed at which technology progresses, and perhaps the willingness of certain law enforcement departments to adapt to new technolgy.

Cole’s analysis of DNA databases is worrisome, as open ended searching allows for law enforcement to find partial matches to DNA samples, which could lead to false arrests and even convictions. Familial searching utilizes this open ended searching to investigate blood relatives of a suspect. The article states that familial searching would “place more than four times as much of the African-American population as the Caucasian population in the national database.” This large inequality highlights the dangers of the DNA database and the need for careful implementation.  

Another context within which to view this dispute is in cases dealing with rape. Having benefits as well as drawbacks, DNA testing is useful in certain scenarios of rape, however in instances such as acquaintance rape, the dispute is not the identity of the suspect rather whether consent was given. A feminist, Holmes, worries that the use of DNA testing will reduce the credibility of eyewitness testimony, which could result as being damaging to the victim.

Holmes also worries that if DNA testing is considered to have solved the rape problem, social and systemic methods for mitigating rape may be undermined, such as measures which equalize the “social, economic and political status of men and women.” In conclusion, the author finds that while superficially DNA testing seems equalizing, deeper analysis demonstrates intertwined race, gender and class issues which do not have a simple answer.