NDAA’s Policy Position on DNA Technology and the Criminal Justice System
The NDAA Board of Directors, at the summer meeting on July 22, 2001, adopted a comprehensive policy on DNA. County Attorney Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County, MN, and County and Prosecuting Attorney Matt Redle, Sheridan, WY, were the principal authors of the effort with technical and legal support provided by Lisa Kreeger of the American Prosecutors Research Institute and Jack Rhodes of the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office.
A full copy of the policy can be found on the NDAA Web site.
Salient policy features include NDAA support for:
- The use of DNA to identify and apprehend criminals and the elimination of innocent suspects.
- A comprehensive, national databank of DNA profiles for criminal justice purposes.
- Testing of all convicted felons and all arrestees for inclusion in the CODIS database; funding for forensic laboratories to eliminate backlogs in the testing of biological samples and the FBI in its efforts to implement the missing persons database.
- Testing of biological evidence as part of the usual pre-trial discovery process. Properly qualified laboratories should conduct investigative testing and any defense re-testing.
- The use of DNA testing where such testing proves the actual innocence of a previously convicted individual.
- Legislation that removes barriers to post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases with appropriate safeguards against potential abuse and such remedies must respect the importance of finality in the criminal justice system.
- Destruction of biological samples from closed cases, provided that convicted individuals are provided with adequate notice and opportunity to request testing.
- Decisions of individual prosecution offices to initiate post-conviction DNA testing programs.
- Creation of exceptions to criminal statutes of limitations and other measures to allow the prosecution of a perpetrator who is identified as a result of a DNA profile comparison using evidence collected from a crime scene.
- Legislation that prohibits the release or use of biological samples held by law enforcement agencies or testing laboratories to any agency, corporation, individual or organization except for legitimate law enforcement purposes.
NDAA also supports full funding at the local, state and federal levels of government for the nation’s forensic laboratories; funding to ensure quality in the nation’s forensic laboratories; laboratory funding to ensure capacity for post-conviction DNA testing; federal funding to establish a system of regional public laboratories to conduct forensic mitochondrial DNA testing; and funding for training in the appropriate use of DNA testing throughout the criminal justice system.
DOJ Appropriations
The Senate has generally followed the lead of the House and provided funding for many of the programs that the president had zeroed out in his budget request for the Department of Justice. While the Byrne Memorial Grant funds appear to be about the same as this fiscal year ($69M vs. $70M) in fact they are almost 100 percent “earmarked” for specific functions.
Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act
The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed S. 625, the “Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001,” the hate crimes legislation identical to the bill that the Senate passed last year.
The “Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act” permits the AG to provide support to local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute hate crimes and to provide grants to help with the expenses associated with these types of crimes and to award grants to state and local programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles—including programs to train prosecutors.
The legislation also expands federal hate crimes by adding arson and explosive devices to the list of criminal conduct; expands the groups of persons to whom protection is afforded to include crimes committed on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or disability; and replaces the need to be engaged in a protected activity to a broader standard based on the commerce clause.
There is a certification requirement by which a federal prosecution could not be undertaken unless the AG, or specific designees, signifies that a state cannot or will not prosecute the case or that the state has requested the federal government to prosecute.
Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Act
In the Senate, the bill is part of the broader “Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act,” while in the House the bill has been introduced as a stand-alone effort. The bill creates funding for local prosecutors to develop and implement drug treatment options for nonviolent offenders. This bill passed the House during the last Congress and NDAA supported the effort. It is caught up at this time over the addition of faith-based initiatives in the Senate version.
Juvenile Justice Legislation
In the House, the “Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act,” HR 863, is ready for floor action. The bill replaces existing provisions regarding grants to develop alternative methods of punishment for young offenders. Grants could be made for graduated sanctions programs; for juvenile facilities; for prosecutors to address juvenile crime issues; to enhance school safety, restorative justice programs, and programs to enable juvenile courts and juvenile probation officers to be more effective in holding juvenile offenders accountable and reducing recidivism; and to hire and provide training programs for detention and corrections personnel.
In the Senate there are competing bills, the “Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act,” S. 1165, and the “Children’s Confinement Conditions Improvement Act,” S.1174, that effectively block movement of either and passage of the House bill will most likely serve as the catalyst for any movement in the Senate.
|
