U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

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

NCJ Number
243876
Author(s)
Jeremiah Goulka; Carl Matthies; Emma Disley; Paul Steinberg
Date Published
2010
Length
34 pages
Annotation
This study compared forensic DNA analysis systems in England and the United States.
Abstract
This study compared forensic DNA analysis systems in England and the United States. Key findings from the study include the following: England's forensic DNA system is more centralized and privatized than the one in the United States, with the English system have fewer steps; the English system has more fully integrated productivity-enhancing technologies than the U.S. system; the turnaround time for results is quicker in England than it is in the United States, with the U.S. system having a considerable backlog of cases awaiting results; and these differences in turnaround time and backlog of cases could be attributable to the differences in strategy and philosophy between the two systems and how they are used by law enforcement. This study was conducted to determine whether aspects of the English forensic DNA analysis system could be incorporated into the U.S. system in order to improve efficiency and more fully utilize the system to aid law enforcement. Data for the study were obtained from 3 sources: interviews with 17 forensic DNA expert practitioners, 7 in the United Kingdom and 10 in the United States; a review of academic literature pertaining to forensic DNA analysis systems; and information from English and U.S. DNA databases. The data was analyzed to compare how the two systems operate and how their successes are measured, and to determine whether certain aspects of the English system could be incorporated into the U.S. system to improve outcomes. Probable policy changes are discussed. Tables, figures, appendixes, and references