Patricia Williams on DNA Databases

Posted by Osagie Obasogie April 6, 2010
Biopolitical Times
Default Image
In her latest column for The Nation, Columbia Law Professor Patricia Williams offers an insightful critique of a burgeoning law enforcement practice: taking and retaining DNA samples from individuals arrested for a crime regardless of whether they are ever charged or convicted. Williams writes:
The collection of DNA has mushroomed in the past five years. California has the third-largest forensic DNA database of any government entity in the world (behind Britain and the US government). All three collect DNA from arrestees regardless of guilt. All three have databases highly skewed by race and class. In Britain 42 percent of black men have had their DNA sampled and stored. Until recently, however, forensic DNA samples were retained only from convicted felons who had committed violent or sexual offenses. With very little oversight or consistency, local rules for collection in criminal cases have expanded haphazardly, often including anyone who is arrested even mistakenly. People may challenge the retention of their DNA and sue to have it expunged, but that process can take years.
This practice is having a profound social impact – especially for racial minorities whose communities are often aggressively policed. For example, CUNY sociologist Harry Levine has outlined how racial bias embedded in what are perceived to be colorblind law enforcement practices (such as New York’s infamous “stop-and-frisk” approach) lead to Blacks’ and Latinos’ overrepresentation in marijuana arrests in New York. Such practices highlight how arrestee inclusion laws can aggravate the already racially disproportionate nature of DNA databases. For example, Greely et. al. estimate that Blacks make up 40% of the federal database while constituting 13% of the population. Williams ends her piece by noting:
We are at the very beginning of a scientific revolution that will no doubt profoundly unsettle certain notions of privacy and bodily integrity. The rampant, unreflective "bio-prospecting" occurring in public law-enforcement agencies and at private-sector data-mining companies should give us pause.