I think the most pressing problem facing DNA testing is the reliance on the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technique. PCR allows an extremely small sample of DNA (picogram quantities) to be amplified exponentially through cycle elongation. Only certified clean samples can be reliably believed. In my experience labs that do a bunch of PCR develope issues with “phantom PCR products” which just means that when you are doing a ton of PCR, the DNA gets everywhere (through aerosols, etc) and thus too many products are amplified. PCR is a needed tool for rare samples (old blood, fossils, etc) but 95% of the uncertainty could be removed by using larger samples for direct genomic manipulation. Instead of one cheek cell swab, do 10 swabs. There are other easy non invasive ways to provide enough DNA to test without PCR. Just my 2 cents.

This is already aggravating to no end with ordinary commercial products (read “Exposed” for an eye-opener on this topic). But we’re talking people’s life here.

As for Mr. Kirkpatrick, what would be his reaction if HIS family members were the object of a DNA search?

That reminds me ( I wish I could find the exact reference) of an amusing episode that took place in the 80’s during Congressional hearings. A couple of months before, a higher up in the Reagan Administration had written a memo stipulating that drug testing should be mandatory for a huge swat of civil servants because otherwise, it would be difficult to consider them trustworthy.

Said higher-up was called to testify before the committee. Before letting him start his testimony the Chairman produced a vial and told the witness to produce a urine sample, so that his testimony would be credible. (*evil grin*)

The jerk became instantly red-faced and angrily denounced this outrageous attack on his constitutional rights to privacy blablabla.

The Chairman immediately thanked the witness for his invaluable testimony and concluded the session. (*very evil grin*)

Agreed with your observations. I’m such a strong believer re civil liberties that I am very leery of any of these arguments that amount to efficiency versus the Constitution, or what little is left of it.

The bit about the right to testing not being symmetrical is appalling and needs to be publicized more widely.

As noted above, I’m also concerned about any technology being seen as infallible. Even if it goes wrong in only a very few cases, those individuals will find it well-nigh impossible to mount a defense that will be given any credence.

I like how Fitzpatrick, the NY DA mentions “imaginary” privacy concerns. It’s comforting to hear our civil servants hold constitutional protections in such high regard.

I wonder if all those advocating for these familial searches (even with the attendant privacy concerns) to help out the prosecutors are as vociferous in advocating DNA testing to help exonerate the innocent as well.

There are plenty of states where even in capital cases, prisoners don’t have access to DNA testing to prove their innocence, or where the state doesn’t provide funds to the public defender’s office to afford such tests.

While DNA testing isn’t perfect, it’s better than eye witness testimony (shockingly inaccurate despite all the safeguards present), or many other forensic methods. But perhaps we should be equally eager to use it to prove innocence as we seem to be to prove guilt.