Both Typecasting and Jekylls and Hydes have proven that before the technological advances of the 19th century, finding criminals and punishing them was neither easy nor fool proof. The increased reliance of technology in the 20th century made DNA testing a household word and lawyers made it appear to be an infallible truth. But is it really?
The study and understanding of DNA and genetics is still far from complete. In 1993 scientists finally isolated the gene for Huntington’s Disease (HD), a hereditary genetic disorder which deteriorates the brain, after over 100 years of studying families affected by the disease. As the brain slowly deteriorates, so does the affected person’s ability to walk, talk, and reason.
When my Grandfather was diagnosed with the disease in 1995, he had already lost his reputation to the disease. He was arrested multiple times for DUIs and disorderly conduct but he never drank a day in his life.
Early HD symptoms look a lot like drunken/drug related behavior. The person undergoes physical changes; a lack of balance, frequent stuttering, an involuntary twitch in the hands. Cognitive abilities begin to weaken as well, creating lapses in short term memory and altering behavior.
DNA might be your unique “unquestionable identity” but just because someone can see and match DNA doesn’t mean that they can read it and understand its meaning, that much is clear just from the history of HD. I hate to quote a movie but Ian Malcolm tells John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” I think the same idea applies to using DNA in criminal investigations. How can anyone have faith in a system that uses anything without understanding or respecting its power?
