Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England

Jeremiah Goulka, Carl F. Matthies, Emma Disley, Paul S. Steinberg

ResearchPublished Dec 20, 2010

Many senior U.S. law enforcement officials believe that the English criminal justice system has capitalized more fully on the crime-fighting potential of forensic DNA evidence than the U.S. criminal justice system. They contend that the English system is much faster at testing DNA samples and at uploading the test results into its forensic DNA database and that the English national DNA database provides more database hits that might help law enforcement solve and prevent crimes. Members of the RAND Center on Quality Policing (CQP) asked RAND researchers to explore the forensic DNA analysis systems in England and the United States to find out whether these perceptions are accurate. This report presents CQP's best efforts to undertake this comparative analysis, which was severely hampered by a lack of data on the U.S. and English forensic DNA systems and the unwillingness of some U.S. agencies to share their data. The authors make use of the limited available information to undertake comparisons of the two systems, highlighting the limitations of these comparisons. Additionally, they discuss broader issues that arose during the course of the analysis as to the appropriate metrics that should be used for comparison and the contextual factors that they think should be taken into account in any international comparison of DNA database systems.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Goulka, Jeremiah, Carl F. Matthies, Emma Disley, and Paul S. Steinberg, Toward a Comparison of DNA Profiling and Databases in the United States and England. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR918.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.