|
Sometimes, especially lately, people ask David Scoville
about the man who raped and strangled his daughter.
If you could get that guy alone in a room, what would
you do?
Maybe this is supposed to give Scoville an opportunity
to vent some bitterness; maybe those who ask are just genuinely
curious. Either way, it doesn't work. David Scoville
'61 is a sixty-seven-year old retiree with the mild voice and
preternatural patience of a former elementary school
teacher, which is what he is. He's not the type to relish the
notion of beating the man. "I have no desire to do that," he
confirms, polite and a little bemused.
The question was for a long time an abstract one;
the perpetrator seemed to exist only as a sample of
DNA recovered from the clothing of Patricia Scoville
'86, who was twenty-eight when she disappeared on a
bicycle ride near Stowe,Vermont, in October 1991. No
arrests were made in the case for more than thirteen
years. But now Howard Godfrey is sitting in a Vermont
correctional facility, awaiting trial for Patty's murder.
Godfrey is a thin, weathered man with bristly grey hair,
fifty-eight years old, the owner of a window and door
company. The fact that he is in a cell is at least in part
because of the efforts of Scoville and his wife, Ann Van
Order Scoville '61. This might explain the apparent lack
of animus toward his daughter's likely killer: in a sense, David
Scoville has already exacted a deeper revenge.
The unfolding of that vengeance, if that is what to call it, was agonizingly
slow. After Patty's murder, the Scovilles waited more
than a decade for police to find the culprit, returning several times
a year to the scene of the crime in an effort to keep their daughter's
name in the newspapers.When the investigation foundered,
they fought to rewrite the law itself. The Scovilles wrote scores of
letters, appealed to politicians, and testified to lawmakers in support
of legislation to establish a DNA database that could connect
crime-scene evidence with convicted offenders. All the while, they
professed an unshakable faith in the criminal justice system, and
in the technology that would, they were certain, eventually deliver
up the man who killed their daughter.
That faith was rewarded in March 2005, when an FBI analyst
linked Howard Godfrey's DNA profile with a sample retrieved
from Patty's clothing in 1991. In cop-show parlance, this was a
"cold hit"--a computer match between crime-scene DNA evidence
and a suspect registered in a databank. In the Scoville case,
the hit was very cold indeed. State and local police had followed
hundreds of leads and discarded scores of suspects in the thirteen
years since Patty's death, and, without the DNA database that the
Scovilles urged, Godfrey could have remained unknown forever.
The journey to his arrest last year would be, for the Scovilles, a
primer on the promise and perils of a technology that may revolutionize
criminal justice in America, and a fresh reminder of how
life can change overnight.
the Scovilles live in a neat white house on a leafy
street of older homes in Canandaigua, a lake
resort town south of Rochester. The family has
deep roots in central New York: Ann grew up in
Skaneateles and Ithaca, and she followed both
her father and grandfather to Cornell, as did a
younger sister, Patricia Van Order '72.When
her oldest child, Patty, applied for early admission to Cornell and
was accepted, she was thrilled, just as her own father, Robert Van
Order '35, BS '36, was when she went off to the Hill. The timing,
too, seemed perfect: David and Ann's Class of 1961 and Patty's
Class of 1986 would celebrate their reunions in the same five-year
increments.
Ann now talks about Patty with an air of practiced composure,
unspooling the familiar details of her daughter's short life.
"For a long time it was very difficult," she says. "But
after a number
of years, you don't have as many opportunities to talk about
her. Telling the story helps us accept the reality."
The couple met as freshmen at Cornell--a blind date set up
by one of David's Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity brothers. Ann was
in the College of Home Economics, studying early childhood education;
the less studious David "busted out" in 1959 and ended
up at the University of Maine. Ann followed him there after graduation,
and they married in 1962. A year later, Patty was born, the
first of three children and their only daughter. The Scovilles
moved back to New York, where David worked on a master's
degree at Syracuse and started teaching language skills at schools
in a series of upstate towns--Little Falls, Saugerties, then
Honeoye. Patty's childhood was a series of small-town touchstones--
Girl Scout, cheerleader, honor student. An avid skier and
hiker, she had a love of the outdoors--and a passion for travel. In
high school, Patty went to Denmark as an exchange student.
Patty was in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell, but
academics and career weren't yet a priority. "Patty did well,
but
unlike a lot of Cornell students, she didn't sweat the small stuff in
life," says Linda Falkson '86, one of Patty's close friends
and an
Alpha Phi sorority sister. "She had a balance in life." Patty
served
as sorority president and was "a wonderful leader--just a ball
of
energy. She was petite, but had a huge presence and personality."
Career plans were still vague. Patty returned to Denmark for
one semester in her junior year and then traveled around Europe.
When several friends moved to Boston after graduation, she followed,
taking a human resources job at a bank and enjoying the
excitement of city life for a few years. But the corporate world
didn't engage her, and when her firm folded, Patty decided on a
major change. She would resettle in Stowe, Vermont, where a
friend and classmate, Neil Hillmer '86, had a family vacation
home. Except for the Hillmers, she didn't know anyone in town
and had no job prospects. From Boston, she answered an ad and
rented a room in a two-bedroom apartment to share with a
woman she'd never met. In the fall of 1991, Patty drove to Stowe
and put most of her belongings in storage. "Patty had this confidence
that things would just happen as they were meant to," Falkson
says.
Back in New York, her parents fretted mildly about Patty's
sudden life change. But Patty told them she'd saved some money
and was planning to find a job as a ski instructor for kids at one
of the local resorts. Besides, Ann was busy caring for her father,
who was struggling with terminal cancer, and had little time or
emotional energy for her independent daughter. "She was just so
good at taking care of herself,"Ann says. The two spoke by phone
on October 5, a few days after Patty arrived in town. She clearly
had things under control, as usual: she was looking for her own
apartment, had signed up for the Red Cross CPR course she
needed to complete before getting the ski job, and raved about the
beauty of the area. "Once we got used to the idea, we gave her our
blessing and said we'd visit,"Ann says.
She pauses.
"And we have."
david Scoville has saved every newspaper
story he could find on his daughter's
killing, mounting them in a large album.
There are now two of these huge bound
volumes, a meticulous chronicle of
Patty's story from October 21, 1991,
when she was last seen alive.
It was a warm day at the height of leaf season, and Patty was
riding her green Fuji ten-speed bicycle, the one she'd had since
junior high, around the village of Stowe. That evening, her mother
left a phone message for her. Patty didn't call back the next day, a
Tuesday. On Wednesday, Ann became perturbed, called again, and
reached her roommate. "Didn't she call you?" the roommate
asked.
The police were called on October 23, and a missing person's
report was filed. Late that day, the phone rang at the Scoville
home. It was Ken Libby, then chief of the Stowe police department.
A couple had reported seeing an unattended green bike at
Moss Glen Falls, a popular scenic attraction and hiking trail a few miles
north of Stowe. "You'd better come up here," Libby said.
The search lasted almost a week. The state police were called
in, and spotter planes, helicopters, dogs, scuba divers, and more
than fifty volunteers scoured the rugged countryside near the falls.
On the sixth day, authorities mounted a last-ditch effort, a grid
search with cadets from the Coast Guard Academy in nearby Norwich,
walking shoulder-to-shoulder through the woods. The body
was well hidden. Patty had been buried in a shallow grave not far
from the falls, covered in leaves and twigs. On October 29, eight
days after she disappeared, Stowe police captain Ken Kaplan and
Aimee Stearns, the Lamoille County victim's assistant, told the
Scovilles that their daughter had been found.
"Is she alive?" Ann found herself asking, though she already
knew the answer.
Stearns, who now works with the state's attorney's office in
Montpelier, says that no one was prepared for that moment.Murder
was all but unknown in that part of the state."None of us had
ever dealt with anything like this," she says. "I did everything
wrong." She told the Scovilles that they couldn't see their daughter's
body--a process then thought to be unnecessarily traumatic--
and instead asked if they would like something to eat.
Ann Scoville remembers the moment well, and smiles ruefully
at the mention of it; after a rough start, she has become close
friends with Stearns. And the years have given her a different perspective
on that awful morning.What, she wonders, would her
life have been like if Patty's body had remained undiscovered, her
fate unknown? "It's funny the things we're grateful for,"Ann
says.
"But we're grateful they found her."
Medical examiners quickly ruled the case a homicide. There
was a deep laceration in the back of Patty's head, but the cause of
death appeared to be asphyxiation, and she had been sexually
assaulted: traces of semen were found on her clothing. The samples
were in good condition--another break. Forensic investigators
were able to successfully isolate the assailant's DNA. Police
were initially confident that the case would soon be closed. Any
suspects could be confirmed against the DNA evidence, and Patty
had kept a detailed account of her three weeks in Stowe. Armed
with her day-planner and address books, investigators were able
to construct an elaborate timeline and a list of suspects--old
boyfriends in Boston, local acquaintances, a young man she had
met at a barn dance the previous weekend. But the DNA samples
volunteered by those suspects failed to match the killer's profile.
The case transfixed the state for months. Police received hundreds
of telephone tips, and rumors swept the region about the
young woman from Boston who was killed so suddenly. As weeks
became months, the Scovilles grew increasingly dismayed. The police had
the killer's DNA; why, they wondered, couldn't they
just test every man within 100 miles of Stowe until a match was
found?
Publicly, however, David Scoville was more diplomatic. That
May, with no apparent progress, he told the Burlington Free Press
that he and his wife remained steadfast. "The evidence is there.
It's just a matter of elimination," he said. "We feel confident
that
this will be solved.We have to feel that way."
the first successful use of DNA testing in a
criminal investigation was in England in the
mid-1980s. The case followed close on the
heels of the invention of DNA "fingerprinting"
technology by a University of Leicester geneticist
named Alec Jeffreys, who discovered that
segments of the DNA found in all human cells
contained distinctive, non-repeating codes unique to each individual.
Using a laborious process of chemical analysis and
radioactive labeling, Jeffreys was able to create patterns that looked
vaguely like bar codes on X-ray film. This profile--the so-called
DNA fingerprint--could then be matched to DNA found at a
crime scene; depending on how many points of comparison were
used, the odds of two unrelated individuals sharing the same
DNA profile could be in the quadrillions, making it an exceptionally
useful tool for identifying people. But its powers, as police
soon learned, work in unexpected ways.
In 1986, a fifteen-year-old girl in Leicestershire was found
dead; she had been raped and strangled, and semen samples
matched those found on another teenage girl murdered in a
nearby town in 1983. A local seventeen-year-old named Richard
Buckland confessed to the Leicestershire crime but denied the
1983 killing, so police sent both samples to Jeffreys, along with a
blood sample from Buckland. DNA analysis confirmed that the
perpetrator of the two killings was indeed the same person, but it
wasn't Buckland, who would make history as the first innocent
man exonerated by DNA profiling.
British police, impressed with the precision of Jeffreys's technique,
launched a huge genetic dragnet to find the real killer.
More than 5,000 local men in neighboring villages were asked to
give blood samples to be tested and matched. The Jeffreys lab
worked for six months, and found . . . nothing. But a year later, a
woman overheard a co-worker claim that a friend had asked him
to take the blood test for him. Police picked up the man, took a
blood sample, and matched his DNA to the two murders.
The case was a landmark demonstration of the new technology's
capabilities, and its limitations. The U.K. became an aggressive
proponent of DNA profiling, in 1995 establishing the U.K.
National DNA Database, which now holds the profiles of more
than three-and-a-half million people. The British system takes
genetic samples from all arrestees, regardless of the severity of the
crime or, indeed, whether charges are later dismissed.With its vast
scope--it's the world's largest genetic library--the
database's value
as a policing tool is unquestionable: a rapist or murderer can be
quickly identified, even if his only previous brush with the law
involved being suspected of drunk driving. But to privacy advocates,
handing over one's genetic information to the state without
probable cause is a civil liberties nightmare--and, in this country,
a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
It was this legal and ethical roadblock that the Scovilles faced
in Vermont. Some suspects refused to provide a DNA sample,
forcing police to obtain court orders. (In other cases, anticipating
a refusal, they obtained the orders before approaching the suspects.)
And, of course, those who balked at giving DNA quickly
became the subject of investigators' attentions, which in turn consumed
more time and resources. Simply casting a DNA dragnet
and demanding samples from all likely males within the immediate
Stowe area wasn't a legal option, not in an independentminded
New England state with a healthy suspicion of government
interference.
Besides, with the technology and resources available at the
time, the lab work involved would have taken years. Dr. Eric Buel,
the head of the Vermont State Forensics Lab, notes that the technique
used to analyze DNA in the early 1990s, called restriction
fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), had numerous steps and
required a substantial amount of material to obtain a reliable profile.
"To verify a match, we were looking at four to five weeks of
work," Buel says. His lab analyzed samples from about fifty suspects,
all of whom were cleared.
For David and Ann Scoville, each suspect crossed off the list
brought fresh anguish. "There were a couple of times we thought,
This is going to be the guy," David says. "It just looked so good."
Indeed, without the DNA evidence, it's possible that one of these
individuals--some of whom confessed to the crime--would have
been prosecuted, perhaps successfully. But DNA, with its maddening,
mathematical precision, exonerated them all.
Years passed, and with each anniversary the Scovilles traveled
to Stowe. "We made a pact that we'd do everything we could to
keep this case in front of the public," says David. They sponsored
tree plantings, dedicated a bench, held a memorial bike ride. The
reward money they offered climbed to $10,000, then $15,000.
After five years, they sat down with Bruce Merriam, the lead investigator
with the Stowe Police Department. The department was stepping up its efforts,
they were told, and as part of a renewed
media blitz, they would also publicly announce, for the first time,
that Patty had been sexually assaulted, in an attempt to dislodge
new witnesses. The Scoville case was one of very few unsolved
murders in Vermont, and by far the most high-profile. "We basically
said, ‘What on Earth can we do?' " Ann recalls. "We
needed
to do something."
Merriam suggested channeling their energies into advocacy. If
Vermont established a DNA databank, the odds might change in
their favor. In 1994, Congress had passed the Federal DNA Identification
Act, which led to the development of the Combined
DNA Index System (CODIS), a three-tiered network of local, state,
and national forensic databases that enables investigators to
exchange information among jurisdictions. But the individual
databases were subject to state control and regulation; in the mid-
1990s, Vermont and Rhode Island were the only two states without
any such database. Additionally, Vermont didn't require violent
felons or sexual offenders to give DNA samples, a step that
forty-two other states had taken. Because the state didn't participate
in the national program, investigators couldn't compare their
DNA evidence with those on file in other states.
There was a reason for this: "Vermont is a pretty liberal state,"
Buel says, "and there was a lot of resistance from a personal freedom
standpoint."He joined the Scovilles in testifying before the Vermont
General Assembly in support of a database bill in 1997.
The bill had been approved by the Vermont Senate in 1996, but
stalled in the House of Representatives. Buel's job was to explain
to lawmakers exactly how DNA fingerprinting works. "I tried to
assuage their fears about DNA and what we were doing with it."
Opponents of the database voiced several concerns.What if
health insurers, for example, had access to this genetic library?
Who would be included in the databank--all suspects, or only
felons convicted of serious, violent crimes? What happens to the
actual blood or skin cell samples--which contain a wealth of yetunknown
personal information? Most states held onto the samples,
even after profiling, and some had no provisions for destroying
the DNA or purging the profiles of innocent suspects or
non-convicted arrestees. The legal waters that surrounded the
rapidly developing new technology were exceedingly murky.
It was into this fray that Ann and David Scoville stepped. Softspoken
and eloquent, the couple proved to be formidable advocates.
"They put a face on the legislation and what it could do,"
Buel says. "It got it down from the abstract to something real."
David threw himself into research, talking to DNA and legal
experts and writing letters to Vermont legislators. Ann's role was
to make a more emotional appeal. "I'd talk about Patty, because
that's what I needed to do," she says. Before a House Judiciary
Committee hearing in Montpelier, Ann detailed her final phone call with
Patty a few weeks before she disappeared, their plans and
dreams, the wedding and grandchildren that would never happen.
"We were both Cornellians whose class reunions would fall
the same year," Ann told the hearing, "so we theorized that no
matter where we were or what we were doing in life, we could
count on meeting at least every five years in a setting that we both
loved. Now those occasions are another reminder of our loss."
The DNA bill passed in 1998. Stearns, the victim's advocate,
says that the Scovilles were major players in its success. "They
think it's nothing, but if you talk to people in Vermont they'd
say
the Scovilles were very instrumental in getting that legislation
passed," she says. "They poured all their energies into it. They're
amazing people."
Part of the effectiveness of their approach was their own personalities,
says Linda Falkson, now a deputy judicial administrator
at Cornell. Unlike many family members in similar positions,
the Scovilles did not seem motivated by personal anger or bitterness.
"For them, it's not about revenge. It's about making sure
there's justice," Falkson says. The couple also seemed to possess
a
nearly bottomless reservoir of faith in a criminal justice system
that had, so far, done so little. "I've worked with a lot of victims
professionally over the years. What was always so remarkable
about the Scovilles was that, even over all those difficult years,
never did I hear them be anything but thankful for the police and their
work."
David Scoville says that the frustration was always there, but
kept behind closed doors. "At home, we weren't so patient," he
says. "But I'm enough of a teacher that I know to deal positively
with people. You catch more flies with honey."
That frustration only grew as the realities of assembling and
using a DNA database became apparent.With the 1998 bill,Vermont
was able to use CODIS to search the national DNA registry.
But Buel's lab struggled to process a backlog of offender samples
that at one point grew to around 3,000. Due to lack of funds, the
processing technique that the lab used at the time wasn't consistent
with the method required for inclusion in CODIS, further
delaying progress.
In 1999, the FBI received the DNA sample found on Patty
Scoville and filed it in the national database of crime-scene evidence.
But no match with an existing criminal profile was made.
"The system was working," David says. "It just wasn't
working
for us."
The Scovilles continued their advocacy work, testifying for a
DNA bill in Rhode Island, speaking out for several victim's rights
groups, and maintaining their annual pilgrimage to Stowe every
October to observe the anniversary of Patty's death. In 2002, they
traveled to Washington, D.C., to receive the National Crime Victim
Service Award; in 2003 Fox TV's "America's Most Wanted" took
up their case in an episode dramatizing the killing.
And, with phone calls and e-mail, they kept a close eye on
investigators in Vermont. "When they didn't stay in touch,
I made sure we did," says David, who often forwarded
newspaper clippings and reports of similar crimes in other
states to the police in Stowe.
"If they hadn't been so vigilant," says Stearns, "I
don't
think there would have been as much activity on the case
as there was."
But Ann had grown weary of this chore. "I felt like they
were saying the same thing over and over again," she says. "I
didn't want to hear any more about what they had done and
what they were going to do.You wait and you wait and you
wait, and you think,Maybe this is never going to happen."
back in August 1996, while David and
Ann Scoville were beginning their advocacy
work, Howard Godfrey was arrested in
Morristown, Vermont, a few miles from
Stowe. He had struck a woman in the back
of the head with a piece of wood and stuck
a loaded shotgun in her abdomen. The
woman, thirty-one-year-old Karen Kerin, managed to escape, and
Godfrey was convicted of aggravated assault in 1997 and sent to
St. Johnsbury Regional Correctional Facility. According to Stearns,
who worked on the case as a victim's advocate, Kerin once wondered
aloud if the man who attacked her might be the famous
Stowe killer who had eluded police for the last five years.
Godfrey was a model prisoner, and he made parole in 2001.
At some point during his incarceration, however, his DNA sample
was taken, in accordance with the new state law. It arrived at
the Vermont Forensics Lab in January 2000, and remained there,
unprocessed, for more than four years. A private lab contracted
by the state received the sample in September 2004, and the resulting
profile was finally uploaded into the national DNA database
on February 23, 2005. Five days later, an FBI analyst in Quantico,
Virginia, found a match: convicted felon #2000-0043, Howard
Godfrey, was linked to the DNA found on Patty Scoville in 1991.
For Vermont police, the endgame to the thirteen-year-old case
was brief.Detectives placed Godfrey under surveillance at his construction
business in Orleans, in the state's Northeast Kingdom.At
the time of the murder, they learned, Godfrey had owned a house
only six miles from Moss Glen Falls.Via a discarded cigarette butt,
they were able to obtain a third DNA sample that matched the
existing profiles, and Godfrey was arrested on March 30.
The next day, David and Ann Scoville made the familiar
seven-hour drive to Stowe from their home in Canandaigua. This
trip, however, would be different. "It was just like going up there
the first time,"Ann says.
The news had brought other echoes of the past. Ken Kaplan,
now the Stowe police chief, called before the arrest to tell them
that the FBI had informed the Vermont Forensics Lab of a hit.
"We were numb," David says. "Bewildered. Flabbergasted.
We
didn't know what to say to each other."
The couple arrived in time to watch Godfrey's arraignment
before a district court in Hyde Park on March 31. The legalities
were perfunctory; Godfrey, assigned a local public defender, pleaded not
guilty. Though he had admitted to detectives that he
had sex with Patty Scoville, he denied killing her. Ann Scoville sat
and watched.
"I had absolutely no feelings about him--it was a void," she
says. "It wasn't hate and it wasn't forgiveness. To me,
he was just
a non-person. Just like Patty must have been to him."
David was struck by the unreality of the scene: the packed
courtroom, the TV cameras, and the haggard man in handcuffs
at the center of it all. "It was like we were watching a movie," he
says. At one point he turned to Aimee Stearns, who sat next to
him at the courtroom. "What a shame," he said, "that two
people's
lives were wasted."
Neither Scoville is a death penalty supporter. "It's answering
violence with violence," says Ann."Doesn't make sense." Godfrey
will likely spend his remaining life in prison, and the Scovilles will
receive the thin but tangible satisfaction of knowing that they
helped put him there. They try not to dwell on the what-ifs that
have accumulated over the years, the lost investigative opportunities
and near-misses that could have put Howard Godfrey away
five years ago, or ten, or fourteen. "That's fruitless," David
says.
"The people involved feel bad enough as it is."
That is true: Ask Eric Buel about the five-year delay at his lab
and he'll admit that there could be unprocessed DNA samples
from other Howard Godfreys sitting in storage right now. "In retrospect,
I wish we'd been able to move things along faster," he says.
"My fear is that there's somebody bad out there, and we don't
have the manpower to profile him yet."
Which, in part, is why the Scovilles say that their work isn't
done. Recently they've testified before the New York State Commission
of Investigation in support of a bill that would expand
the state's DNA database to include all offenders, included those
convicted of only minor misdemeanors. If passed, the law would
be the most expansive DNA legislation in the country. There will
be more opportunities to tell their story, how it finally ended, and
why, as Ann says, they still consider themselves lucky. They found
their daughter, and now they will see her killer in court.
Exactly when that will happen, however, is unclear. Attorneys
have some 15,000 pages of evidence to sift through, the residue
of the prolonged investigation. A trial was promised this year, but
next year is more likely, if then. The Scovilles are in no hurry.
"We're patient people,"David Scoville says. "We can
wait."
Crime & Punishment
The battle for the future of DNA evidence
eric Buel, the
director of the Vermont State Forensics Lab, calls it "The 'CSI' Effect." It's
the notion--dramatized weekly in the popular
CBS police procedural--that forensic
investigators can take a strand of wayward
hair or a scrap of cellular debris and
instantly divine a vast amount of personal
information about the unknown perp who left it behind. "People
expect us to be able to do everything," he says. "It's
not so simple."
For one thing, the DNA profiles used for forensic identification
and stored in computer databases reveal little more than a
standard fingerprint--each is a series of fifty-two digits keyed
to
so-called "junk" DNA, which does not code for any known
characteristics.
"We look at all these numbers and we really can't
tell anything, except sex," Buel says. "It's just
a small snapshot."
Nevertheless, the potential of DNA evidence to reshape
policing and criminal justice is of growing interest to lawmakers,
legal ethicists, and civil liberties advocates. The key issue for
many is the use--and misuse--of the databases of DNA profiles
maintained by local, state, and federal law enforcement. Initially,
such databases were limited to the most violent convicted
offenders and sexual predators, but since the late 1990s several
states have expanded the legal scope to include those convicted
of lesser offenses. This summer, New York State lawmakers considered
the All-Crimes DNA Bill, endorsed by Governor George Pataki. It would
require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or youthful offense to
submit a DNA sample. Police say that casting the wider net will help
prevent more serious crimes, many of which are committed by criminals
with lengthy prior records. Foes of the bill, which include the
American Civil Liberties Union, cite a number of concerns about security
at crime labs, misuse of personal information, and the constitutional
right to privacy.
It is a clash that has been brewing ever since DNA profiling technology
was invented, says University of Washington professor Phil
Bereano '61, MRP '71. He has chaired the ACLU's
Committee on
Databases and Civil Liberties and is a founding member of the nonprofit
Council for Responsible Genetics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"We predicted all this twenty years ago," he says. "It
was always obvious
that this is a technology of control and surveillance."
Bereano's objections to DNA databases are based on the understanding
that government control of such information is a fundamental
erosion of civil liberties. "With these databases, there's
this notion
that we're divvying up the world into good people and bad people," he
says. "But just because someone is suspected of shoplifting
doesn't mean they have forfeited the right to privacy."
Though DNA profiles themselves contain little personal information,
the samples of blood or skin cells that they are derived from
do--and much legislation doesn't address how, or if, these
samples
are disposed of. Individual jurisdictions have varying practices;
in Erie
County, New York, for example, the local crime lab files DNA samples
from crime victims as well as suspects, along with profiles of
arrestees who were later cleared--often without their knowledge.
Police have successfully used this database to close unsolved crimes,
but lawyers with the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo
School of Law in Manhattan have attacked the policy as a violation
of
the state's DNA database laws.
For Bereano, it's another example of how DNA databanks invite
and justify misuse. "If the cops could just smash in everybody's
doors,
they'd probably find a lot more crimes," he says. "The
Constitution's
founders knew this--that's what the Fourth Amendment is
about."
Advocates of offender databases, however, can cite such policy
discrepancies as proof that more robust DNA legislation is needed. "I
think you write the law and make sure it's fair and funded,
and you
make sure the abuses don't happen," says David Scoville,
who testified
for the New York All-Crimes Bill in Albany. "Part of the law
has to
be figuring out how to expunge people who've been wrongly convicted."
He also doesn't support proposals to expand the federal database
beyond the ranks of convicted criminals. "If you've broken
the
law, the public has a right to put your DNA into a database. But
that's
only if you've been convicted."
University of Wisconsin law professor Michael Smith, who is the
chair of a working group of the National Commission on the Future
of
DNA Evidence, has a more radical proposition. "I want to reframe
the
question," he says. "Why do we exclude people and who
do we exclude?" Building a DNA database via the criminal justice
system,
he insists, is not only expensive and inefficient, it deepens
a corrosive racial disparity. "This needs to be as inclusive
as
possible. If the database has a wildly disproportionate representation
of African American males, they will be the ones
found to have committed previously unsolvable crimes. And
when patterns of enforcement are racially skewed, the laws
themselves are delegitimized."
The solution: a universal DNA database. "It's unpalatable
when presented, but I'd say you'd have to take the DNA
at birth,"
says Smith. Blood samples, he notes, have been taken from
newborns for decades to screen for inherited conditions, but
the samples are not processed for the identifying DNA profiles.
Such an idea has many prominent proponents, including scientist
James Watson, the man who co-discovered the double-helix
structure of DNA. A prerequisite for establishing a universal
database, Smith says, should be some mechanism that would
insure that the sample itself--where the significant personal
information resides--is purged after the profile is obtained. "To
paraphrase, It's the sample, stupid," he says. "If
we could make
a device where you can destroy the sample as it is being typed,
then what's the issue?"
A universal DNA library of some manner may ultimately be
a foregone conclusion, but public resistance is strong, in part
because the concept of DNA databases has now been firmly
linked with criminality. "Is taking someone's DNA punishment?
I
don't think it is," says Smith. "As it stands,
we require justification
for sampling people's DNA. On closer examination, the
legal reasons turn to dust. But we've established this habit
and
it's going to be hard to break.We've boxed ourselves
in." |
|