Notes

Identifying Lowly Criminals Can Come at a High Cost
DNA evidence usually makes people think of gruesome crime scenes, murder suspects and lengthy trials. But despite what you might learn from re-runs of CSI: Miami, DNA evidence isn’t only used to solve high profile crimes. Today, it is easier than ever to use DNA evidence to solve more common crimes like home robbery and car theft. But that doesn’t always mean it is the best way.

The Richland County Sheriff Department has used DNA in their investigations since 2004. In fact, they even tracked down two alleged kidnappers in 2011 due to DNA evidence they found on a stolen car. “We’ve been able to solve cases that we’d have never solved without these DNA capabilities,” said Richland County Sherriff Leon Lott. “And it’s not just major cases. We do DNA on all of our cases. Every deputy has been trained on how to get DNA at a crime scene. So it doesn’t matter if it’s vandalism of a mailbox, we’re going to take DNA evidence.”

Even though catching criminals with the help of DNA is certainly a good thing, it also means Richland County’s lab is burdened with more DNA samples than ever before. Roughly 80 percent of their lab’s DNA work comes from common crimes such as burglary and theft. This raises an interesting question. Is our justice system equipped to handle all these newly identified criminals?

Consider this study, funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). It found that using DNA evidence during burglary investigations led to twice as many arrests. That means if twice as many suspects are convicted and sentenced, the population of U.S. prisons could double. In theory, this could cripple the criminal justice system. As the number of suspects increases, detectives would be forced to spend more time tracking them down. Prosecutors and public defenders would be handling more court cases than ever. And analysts in crime labs would be working overtime just to test all the DNA samples. The workload could double overnight.

In addition, while DNA testing is clearly effective in finding suspects and making arrests, that success comes at a price. According to the same NIJ study, the average cost of collecting and processing DNA evidence for one case is $1,400. And if this evidence leads to identifying and arresting a suspect, it can add an additional $18,671 to the bill. Lawmakers must weigh their options. Does lower crime justify the higher cost? Or should it be the other way around?

Unfortunately there is no right answer to these questions. Even though millions of robberies and thefts happen each year, the price of using DNA testing for all of them is still too high. Until technology advances and costs come down each community will have to decide for themselves. What’s worth more—low crime or low cost?