Public Policy and DNA

Transcription

1 National Institute of Justice Public Policy and DNA Edwin Zedlewski, Ph.D.

2 Overview Why do social science research on forensics issues? NIJ s growing research portfolio in this area Highlights of three major projects

3 Policy Research Questions: How Does A Given Innovation Improve public safety? Advance the principles of justice? Serve victims? Reduce costs? Reduce time to identification? Impact law enforcement and courts practices? Influence broad justice policy?

4 NIJ s Growing Portfolio In FY05, it all started with: DNA Demonstration Program and Evaluation Federal Casework Evaluation In FY06, we expanded to other forensics: Role and Impact of Forensic Evidence in Criminal Justice Processes Controlled Substances Case Processing Study Fingerprint Study Cold Case Initiative Governor s Criminal Justice Advisors Project Elder Forensics

5 And Then.. In FY07, we expanded in other directions: National Cold Hit Reporting Initiative Quantifying the Specific Deterrent Effects of DNA Databases Focus Group on Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom Policy Implications of Adding Arrestees to DNA Databases

6 And Then In FY08, we looked at new programs Forensic Blueprint for law enforcement Evaluation of DNA Efficiency Programs Evaluation of Post-Conviction Testing Improving Investigation Outcomes eval Study of juveniles in DNA system One year follow up of property crime exp Cutmark study

7 DNA Expansion Demonstration Program Providing funds for expanding DNA evidence collection to property crimes Implemented in 5 sites, October 1, 2005: Denver, Colorado Los Angeles, California Orange County, California Phoenix, Arizona Topeka, Kansas 18-month experiment using random assignment Independent multi-site evaluation

8 Variations Among Sites Use of Demonstration Funds Lab equipment and/or personnel Law enforcement expenses Prosecutor expenses Targeted Crimes Residential burglary, Commercial burglary, and/or Theft from auto Who Collects the Samples Responding officer Crime scene technician/specialists Combination

9 Major Results: With DNA Identifications doubled: 12% to 31 % Arrests doubled: 8% to 16% Convictions doubled: 8 to 19% Suspects identified through DNA had three times as many felony priors as those identified conventionally Five times more likely to identify with DNA than with fingerprints Study nominated for Harvard Innovations Award, Attorney General Award

10 Lessons Learned Top management support is essential Change takes time. Need to work out process glitches, policy changes Clear lines of communication. Shared responsibility and accountability Training Lessons One-off training not enough, especially for responding officers Reinforcement works: Attaboys to collectors

11 Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction Program Goal: To reduce the number of unanalyzed no suspect cases and to effectively use CODIS to solve no suspect crimes having DNA evidence.

12 Evaluation of Federal Casework Programs Primary question: To what extent were goals and objectives from Federal Casework Programs (backlog reduction, no-suspect) met Data sources: Grant files 3 surveys - law enforcement, crime laboratories, prosecutors 8 case studies

13 Backlog Data from Subsample Violent Crime ( ) Median Number of Backlogged Cases: Violent Crime state lab local lab

14 Backlog Data from Subsample Non-Violent Crime ( ) Median Number of Backlogged Cases: Non-Violent Crime state lab local lab

15 Summary: Factors Contributing to Backlog Increase in number of cases submitted Increase in number of samples per case Increase in submission of samples from non-violent crimes Implementation of more rigorous QA/QC procedures Training/learning curve new examiners Validation of new equipment Contextual Factors move new facilities, CO legislation, etc.

16 Summary Substantial increase in number of hits Backlog of violent crime appears to be leveling off somewhat and non-violent increasing Communication/Collaboration between labs and user agencies has significantly improved over the last several years Notable increases in lab capacity and infrastructure around DNA screening, analysis, and reporting

17 Influence of Forensic Evidence on Criminal Case Outcomes Some 25 years have passed since the last major assessment of the contributions of forensics to case outcomes. An estimated $1.5 billion is spent annually on forensic services but we have little idea of the value added to: Investigative decisions Charging decisions Convictions NIJ solicited proposals in 2006 to assess the role and impact of forensic evidence on criminal justice processes

18 Forensic Evidence Projects Parallel projects (Cal State, LA; ILJ): How many crime scenes yield forensic evidence of what kinds? What kinds of evidence are collected? Where do forensic cases attrite? Crime scenes through laboratory analyses, and subsequent criminal justice processes Which forms of evidence contribute most frequently (relative to their availability) to successful case outcomes?

19 Critical Decision Points Crime scene evidence collection Laboratory acceptance, prioritization and analysis Police decision to investigate, arrest and/or exclude suspects Prosecutor decisions to file charges, accept pleas, or take cases to trial Fact-finders use of scientific evidence, reports and testimony

20 Key Outcomes Reported crime led to arrest Arrestee is formally charged Arrestee is fully charged Prosecuted defendant is convicted Convicted offender given appropriate sanction Length of incarceration

21 Implications for Policy and Practice Is quality of evidence a useful measure in guiding collection/analysis of evidence? Is forensic evidence important in initiating and sustaining cases throughout criminal justice process? Does inclusion of forensic evidence increase efficiency of case adjudication? Do criminal justice professionals have adequate knowledge of forensic evidence?

22 Questions? For more information, contact Ed Zedlewski: or