• A New DNA Test Can ID a Suspect's Race, But Police Won't Touch It.
    139 replies, posted
[quote] [B]In the summer of 2002,[/B] the FBI, the Baton Rouge Police Department, and several other agencies began a massive search for a serial killer suspected of murdering three women. Based on an FBI profile and an eyewitness report, they upended southern Louisiana looking for a white man who drives a white pickup, collecting DNA from more than 1,000 Caucasian males. They found nothing. Meanwhile, the killer struck again.In March 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the suspect's race by analyzing his DNA. Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one. On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer.[I] "Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian."[/I] There was a prolonged silence, followed by a flurry of questions. They all came down to this: Would Frudakis bet his life on his results? Absolutely. Quickly changing course, the authorities soon turned up the file of Derrick Todd Lee, a 34-year-old black man with an extensive rap sheet for domestic violence, assault, stalking, and peeping. The police got a subpoena, took a cheek swab, and a few days later had an answer: Lee's sample matched DNA collected at the crime scenes.Frudakis' test is called DNAWitness. It examines DNA from 176 locations along the genome. Particular sequences at these points are found primarily in people of African heritage, others mainly in people of Indo-European, Native American, or South Asian descent. No one sequence can perfectly identify a person's origin. But by looking at scores of markers, Frudakis says he can predict ancestry with a tiny margin of error.Since the Baton Rouge case, DNAWitness has been used nationally in nearly 200 criminal investigations. In several, the science played a crucial role in narrowing the suspect field, ultimately leading to an arrest. But its success hasn't made the technology popular with law enforcement. Frudakis' company, DNAPrint, has yet to turn a profit and may not survive much longer.Part of the problem is cost — basic tests run more than $1,000. But the real issue? DNAWitness touches on race and racial profiling — a subject with such a tortured history that people can't countenance the existence of the technology, even if they don't understand how it works. [I]"Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says Troy Duster, former president of the American Sociological Association." [/I]This is analyzing data derived from a crime scene," Frudakis counters. "It's just a way for police to narrow down their suspect lists." But his position, rational as it may be, is no match for the emotions that surface with any pairing of race and crime. Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: "Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup." [B]Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don't all [I]"bleed the same blood."[/I][/B] [I][B]He adds, "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."[/B][/I][/quote] source [URL]http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/16-01/ps_dna[/URL] found it quite interesting of a read.
Oh America - Only you could have a reaction to this based on race and ludditism in some unholy cocktail
"Sorry ma'am, the thechnology to find the murderer of your son exists, but we don't want to use it"
I was wondering how interracial DNA profiling would work.
Why wouldn't you ID him based on race? In a crime investigation you look for as much objective ways to identify your suspect as you can find. DNA is more objective and solid than a witness. [quote]"Once we start talking about predicting racial background from genetics, it's not much of a leap to talking about how people perform based on their DNA — why they committed that rape or stole that car or scored higher on that IQ test," says Troy Duster[/quote] Someone tell this guy the difference between nature and nurture.
[QUOTE=Leftenant Cockbrain]Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup [while serial murder continued]... If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would[/QUOTE] Fucking fellate a jigsaw, jesus.
Hmm, a useful tool for narrowing down a list of suspects in a crime. THAT'S RACIST!
i honestly agree with the guy. racial profiling would definitely increase from this, because oh the hindsight bias
At the end of the day the only difference between me and somebody else is the color of our skin, and if somebody happens to have that same color of skin and is also a criminal, that means absolutely diddly.
It's a good tool and I'd be in favour of using it, but political shitstorm.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35540901]i honestly agree with the guy. racial profiling would definitely increase from this, because oh the hindsight bias[/QUOTE] I think it would mainly just increase because of people being really, really stupid. Any rational mind would know the difference between one dude being a dick and everybody else being a dick.
Hah, see if they can catch me even with that. There are millions of white men in America, I'll fit right in. After all, we all look the same, bleed the same blood, and talk the same. Next thing you know, hundreds of white males being racially profiled across the nation. Such is life in the U.S..
uhhh if it narrows your suspects and it's nearly foolproof why wouldn't you use it how is this any different than a test that tells you the color of the suspect's hair, or their height
Once it reveals someones an immigrant and then they found out they're illegal, shit storm will ensue because "Profiling!" or some dumb shit..
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35540901]i honestly agree with the guy. racial profiling would definitely increase from this, because oh the hindsight bias[/QUOTE] yeah, profiling people based on their race using DNA is a pretty uncomfortable area, especially if someone takes it towards trying to scientifically prove that one race is on average smarter or more aggressive than another
[QUOTE=archangel125;35540921]It's a good tool and I'd be in favour of using it, but political shitstorm.[/QUOTE] i really, really don't understand this it just gives you more details about the suspect retarded asshole racist cops will be retarded asshole racist cops regardless of whether this is used or not
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;35540872]Hmm, a useful tool for narrowing down a list of suspects in a crime. THAT'S RACIST![/QUOTE] More like it has the potential to be a tool of racism
[quote]Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don't all "bleed the same blood." He adds, "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."[/quote] You're not helping racial equality by rejecting science, bro.
"Sorry, I know this technology could help determine your suspect, but we here at the police department don't want to look racist. Besides, we're too busy killing elderly black marines whose LifeAlert pendants went off, and covering for a guy who followed and killed a black teen."
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;35540959]yeah, profiling people based on their race using DNA is a pretty uncomfortable area, especially if someone takes it towards trying to scientifically prove that one race is on average smarter or more aggressive than another[/QUOTE] but we profile people based on their race all the fucking time without DNA i mean they were looking for a caucasian dude in the example posted, that's racial profiling. it's called trying to fucking catch a serial killer, you need a description of the suspect to do it, and yeah, that includes their skin tone
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35540981]More like it has the potential to be a tool of racism[/QUOTE] So it demonstrably increases the chances of apprehending serial killers, and is demonstrably accurate, but because it could conceivably be an abstract concept without justification, we most avoid it at all costs.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35540981]More like it has the potential to be a tool of racism[/QUOTE] oh cry me a fucking river and drown in it every single aspect of scientific inquiry that postulates some genetic difference between the races is a potential tool of racism. but the only people that are going to use it that way are the same dumb idiot racist retards that would be racist jerkoffs regardless. all you're doing is hampering the investigation, there is literally no reason not to use this tech besides squeamishness.
We should also stab eyes of all cops and judges out, so they couldn't take race of the suspects into account.
The police have no problem issuing the race of a suspect along with other identifying features when asking the public for help finding them; this is no different. It's absolutely absurd that science that can save lives by catching serial killers is shunned because of the chance of the same old bunch of racist morons abusing it for their own idiotic ends.
[QUOTE=Last or First;35540993]"Sorry, I know this technology could help determine your suspect, but we here at the police department don't want to look racist. Besides, we're too busy killing elderly black marines whose LifeAlert pendants went off, and covering for a guy who followed and killed a black teen."[/QUOTE] FUCKING REALLY? you bring this shit into a thread that has NOTHING with either cases, if anything the police was profiling white people.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;35540989]You're not helping racial equality by rejecting science, bro.[/QUOTE] I don't see racial equality and science really that close together, but more so an issue of moral ethics that needs to be addressed. Just because science is a answer doesn't mean you should automatically jump to it instead of taking into account other solutions, differnet outcomes, etc.. It's good that we've developed a technology that can detect such things, but you'd be an idiot to say it won't be abused its ass off by people to the point where it just makes everyone uncomfortable. Yes, it'll help catch killers, but chances are, it'll help catch innocent people too. If racial profiling was bad to begin with when we didn't have the technology to figure out a offender's race, then just imagine what every "X Cop" who sees "Y Civilian" with "Z Color Tone" walking in street is going to think once they figure out said civilian is of the matching race. Shit won't look well.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;35540979]i really, really don't understand this it just gives you more details about the suspect retarded asshole racist cops will be retarded asshole racist cops regardless of whether this is used or not[/QUOTE] it gives a scientific justification for behavior. it's providing actual scientific evidence to perpetuate prejudice. people are already looking for reasons to justify their prejudice, and with a tool like this the problem will only get worse. basically we are asserting race to be more than just a difference of skin, but a completely different strand of DNA altogether. this could create so much inequality, way beyond the scope of police. just think of people who would use this to say that black people cause more crime, because they have DNA to prove it.
[QUOTE=Trogdon;35541195]it gives a scientific justification for behavior. it's providing actual scientific evidence to perpetuate prejudice. people are already looking for reasons to justify their prejudice, and with a tool like this the problem will only get worse. basically we are asserting race to be more than just a difference of skin, but a completely different strand of DNA altogether. this could create so much inequality, way beyond the scope of police. just think of people who would use this to say that black people cause more crime, because they have DNA to prove it.[/QUOTE] Um, what? We haven't suddenly discovered how to determine if someone is black whereas before we weren't aware race even existed. We already know the races of people we catch and convict. This just gives a method of determining the race of a person simply from DNA evidence.
I don't think showing someones race via DNA would show all black people cause more crime.
[QUOTE=Doneeh;35541192]I don't see racial equality and science really that close together, but more so an issue of moral ethics that needs to be addressed. Just because science is a answer doesn't mean you should automatically jump to it instead of taking into account other solutions, differnet outcomes, etc.. It's good that we've developed a technology that can detect such things, but you'd be an idiot to say it won't be abused its ass off by people to the point where it just makes everyone uncomfortable. Yes, it'll help catch killers, but chances are, it'll help catch innocent people too. If racial profiling was bad to begin with when we didn't have the technology to figure out a offender's race, then just imagine what every "X Cop" who sees "Y Civilian" with "Z Color Tone" walking in street is going to think once they figure out said civilian is of the matching race. Shit won't look well.[/QUOTE] Why is anyone who doesn't agree with your completely speculative future of this technology an idiot? You're proposing we play hide and seek with young children where they're standing right fucking there but we have to pretend not to see them to be nice, except the children are serial murderers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.