Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DNA fingerprints and rape: A feminist assessment

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Can the use of DNA fingerprinting reduce the frequency of rape? Feminist technology assessment is used here to evaluate this new forensic technique, which distinguishes between persons by differences in DNA sequences in variable regions of their chromosomes. Although everyone's DNA pattern is unique, the statistical degrees of difference among sub-populations within ethnic and racial groups are not fully known. The technique is beset by laboratory errors, difficulties in interpretation, and lack of quality control. Policy analysts may also be troubled by the politics behind the harassment of expert witnesses, the rejection by journals of critical articles, the influence of the FBI on federal assessment reports, and the inequitable distribution of costs and benefits.

The cases of British rapist-murderer Colin Pitchfork, San Diego rape victim Alicia Wade, and eight exonerated convicts demonstrate how the technique can clear probably innocent rape suspects, but they illustrate little rape-prevention capacity. If DNA testing accurately exonerates a suspect, then the police may continue searching; yet, a test with greater power to exonerate may let criminals escape and may lower the credibility of rape victims' eyewitness testimony. Furthermore, any accurate DNA typing might foster behavior to avoid apprehension or the reduction of sentences through plea-bargaining, thus having a negative effect on deterrence. Despite clear benefit to individual women in specific circumstances, this technique is likely, overall, to be disadvantageous to women.

The rape victim identifies her assailant in a police line-up again before the jury in court. He is convicted and put behind bars. Some years later he hears about DNA testing and convinces his lawyer to get tests on the semen that was fund on the victim's clothes. when results show that he could not have been the rapist, he is released from prison. Yet the victim remains convinced that he was the man who attacked her and lives in fear that will find her and rape her again.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldhous, Peter (1991). ‘Congress reviews DNA testing,”Nature 351: 684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Christopher (1991). ‘DNA fingerprinting discord,”Nature 354: 500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Christopher (1992a). ‘Academy approves, critics still cry foul,’Nature 356: 552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Christopher (1992b). ‘Courts reject DNA fingerprinting, citing controversy after NAS report,’Nature 359: 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews v. State, 533 So.2d 841 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988).

  • Annas, George J. (1993). ‘Privacy rules for DNA databanks: Protecting coded “future diaries,”’Journal of the American Medical Association 270: 2346–2350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (1990). ‘The fallibility of forensic DNA testing: Of proficiency in public and private laboratories — Part one,’Scientific Sleuthing Review 14 (2): 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (1992a). ‘DNA tests clear man imprisoned for 4 years,’New York Times, May 3: 30.

  • Anon. (1992b). ‘6 years later, conviction is overturned,’New York Times, October 6: B5.

  • Anon. (1993). ‘DNA testing frees man jailed in rape,’New York Times, April 25: 29.

  • Baird, Michael L. (1991). ‘Analysis of forensic DNA samples by single locus VNTR probes,’ in Mark A. Farley and James J. Harrington, eds.Forensic DNA Technology. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pp. 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barinaga, Marcia (1989). ‘Pitfalls come to light,’Nature 339: 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, Larry and Murray A. Straus (1989).Four Theories of Rape in American Society: A State-Level Analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, Jessie Jo (1989). ‘The use of DNA typing in criminal prosecutions: A flawless partnership of law and science?’New York Law School Law Review 34: 485–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. and B. Shipley (1989).Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ-116261. Washington, DC.

  • Boggs, Danny J. (1989). ‘Reactions and judicial perspective,’ in John Ballantyne, George Sensabaugh and Jan Witkowski, eds.DNA Technology and Forensic Science. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 347–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brdička, R. and P. Nürnberg (1993). ‘Checking of individuality by DNA profiling,’Journal of Chromatography 618: 167–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, Ann Wolpert and Lynda Lytle Holmstrom (1985). ‘Rape trauma syndrome and post traumatic stress response,’ in Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed.Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, Corlann Gee (1983). ‘Women and the assessment of technology: To think, to be, to unthink, to free,’ in Joan Rothschild, ed.Machina ex Dea: Feminist Perspectives on Technology. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, Ranajit and Kenneth Kidd (1991). ‘The utility of DNA typing in forensic work,’Science 254: 1735–1739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, Dan (1992). ‘Courtroom battle over genetic fingerprinting,’New Scientist, April 18: 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culpepper, Emily Erwin (1981). ‘Uncovering patriarchal agendas and exploring woman-oriented values,’ in Helen B. Holmes, Betty B. Hoskins and Michael Gross, eds.The Custom-Made Child? Women-Centered Perspectives. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, pp. 301–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Joe and Jonathan M. Moses (1992). ‘Use of DNA evidence in court endorsed,’Wall Street Journal, April 15: B6.

  • Dobbin, Ben (1993). ‘DNA: Final legal arbiter,’Chicago Tribune, January 4: 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ex Parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala. 1991).

  • Farr, C. J. and P. N. Goodfellow (1991). ‘New variations on the theme,’Nature 354: 184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foderaro, Lisa W. (1991). ‘DNA frees man in prison 9 years in rape,’New York Times, August 6: B1, B5.

  • Franklin-Barbajosa, Cassandra (1992). ‘The new science of identity,’National Geographic, May: 112–124.

  • Gass, David A. and Marjorie Maguire Shultz (1992). ‘An analysis of decisional law governing the use of DNA evidence,’ in Paul R. Billings, ed.DNA on Trial: Genetic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 43–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellman, Barton (1990). ‘DNA test clears man convicted of SE rape,’Washington Post, March 20: A12.

  • Green, William M. (1988).Rape: The Evidential Examination and Management of the Adult Female Victim. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerman, Paul J. (1990). ‘DNA typing in the forensic arena,’American Journal of Human Genetics 47: 876–877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, David P. (1991). ‘Letting the “cops” make the rules for DNA fingerprinting,’Science 252: 1603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Lynne (1992). ‘Rape and responsibility,’Law and Philosophy 11: 127–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, Lynne (1993). ‘Getting to know: Honoring women in law and in fact,’Texas Journal of Women and the Law 2: 41–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higuchi, Russell (1991). ‘Human error in forensic DNA typing,’American Journal of Human Genetics 48: 1215–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higuchi, Russell and Edward T. Blake (1989). ‘Applications of the polymerase chain reaction in forensic science,’ in John Ballantyne, George Sensabaugh and Jan Witkowski, eds.DNA Technology and Forensic Science. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffel, Janet C. (1990). ‘The dark side of DNA profiling: Unreliable scientific evidence meets the criminal defendant,’Stanford Law Review 42: 465–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle (1985). ‘The criminal justice system's response to the rape victim,’ in Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed.Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 189–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, Ruth and Elijah Wald (1993).Exploding the Gene Myth. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humes, Edward (1992). ‘The DNA wars,’Los Angeles Times Magazine, November 29: 21–22, 24, 26, 54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, H. Patricia (1987). ‘A paradigm for regulation of the biomedical industry: Environmental protection in the United States,’ in Patricia Spallone and Deborah Lynn Steinberg, eds.Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 190–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Robert L. (1992). ‘Science panel backs DNA evidence in criminal trials,’Los Angeles Times, April 15: A1, A17.

  • Jeffreys, Alec J., Nicola J. Royle, Victoria Wilson and Zilla Wong (1988). ‘Spontaneous mutation rates to new length alleles at tandem-repetitive hypervariable loci in human DNA,’Nature 332: 278–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, Alec J., Zilla Wong, Victoria Wilson, Ila Patel, Rita Neuman, Nicola Royle, and John A. L. Armour (1989). ‘Applications of multilocus and single-locus minisatellite DNA probes in forensic medicine,’ in John Ballantyne, George Sensabaugh and Jan Witkowski, eds.DNA Technology and Forensic Science. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, Alec J., Annette MacLeod, Keiji Tamaki, David L. Neil and Darren G. Monckton (1991). ‘Minisatellite repeat coding as a digital approach to DNA typing,’Nature 354: 204–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerkins, Jayne (General Counsel, Constitution Subcommittee, U.S. Senate) (1994). Personal communication, May 2.

  • Kilpatrick, Dean G., C. L. Best, L. J. Veronen, A. E. Amick, L. A. Villeponteaux and G. A. Ruff (1985). ‘Mental health correlates of criminal victimization: A random community survey,’Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53: 866–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, Gina (1990). ‘Some scientists doubt the value of “DNA fingerprint” evidence,’New York Times, January 29: A1.

  • Kolata, Gina (1991). ‘Critic of “genetic fingerprint” tests tells of pressure to withdraw paper,’New York Times, December 20: 20.

  • Kolata, Gina (1992a). ‘U.S. panel seeking restriction on use of DNA in courts,’New York Times, April 14: A1, C7.

  • Kolata, Gina (1992b). ‘Chief says panel backs courts’ use of a genetic test,’New York Times, April 15: A1, A23.

  • Kolata, Gina (1992c). ‘DNA fingerprinting: Built-in conflict,’New York Times, April 17: A13.

  • Krajick, Kevin (1993). ‘Genetics in the courtroom,’Newsweek, January 11: 64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lander, Eric S. (1989). ‘DNA fingerprinting on trial,’Nature 339: 501–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lander, Eric S. (1992). ‘DNA fingerprinting: Science, law, and the ultimate identifier,’ in Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood, eds.The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 191–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, Richard (1991). ‘Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence: With thanks to the Reverend Bayes,’Cardozo Law Review 13: 303–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Roger (1989). ‘DNA typing on the witness stand,’Science 244: 1033–1035.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, Roger (1992). ‘“FBI pressure” on journal forces climb-down,’New Scientist, January 4: 4.

  • Lewontin, Richard and Daniel Hartl (1991). ‘Population genetics in forensic DNA typing,’Science 254: 1745–1750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, Peter (1993). ‘Winning ugly,’Esquire, April: 83–84.

  • Madigan, Lee and Nancy C. Gamble (1991).The Second Rape: Society's Continued Betrayal of the Victim. New York: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mange, Arthur P. and Elaine Johansen Mange (1990).Genetics: Human Aspects. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Karen (1992). ‘Impact of advances in genetics on civil liberties and criminal justice,’ in Stephen Brown and Karen Marshall, eds.Advances in Genetic Information. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, pp. 81–87, 94–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, Colman (1993). ‘DNA testing and judicial system's flaws,’Washington Post, March 16: C10.

  • Moenssens, Andre A. (1993). ‘Novel scientific evidence in criminal cases: Some words of caution,’Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 34: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgall, Janine Marie (1993).Technology Assessment: A Feminist Perspective. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naik, Gautam (1992). ‘Police like genetic data banks, but critics question validity,’Wall Street Journal, July 28: B1, B8.

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic Science (1992).DNA Technology in Forensic Science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neufeld, Peter J. (1993). ‘Have you no sense of decency?’Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 34: 190–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Castro, 144 Misc. 2d 956, 545 N.Y.S. 2d 985 (1989).

  • Rabinovitz, Jonathan (1992). ‘Rape conviction overturned on DNA tests,’New York Times, December 2: B6.

  • Rabinow, Paul (1992). ‘Galton's regret: Of types and individuals,’ in Paul R. Billings, ed.DNA on Trial: Genetic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, David and Matt Lait (1993). ‘DNA tests clear janitor of abuse charges,’Los Angeles Times, April 24: A19.

  • Roberts, Leslie (1991). ‘Fight erupts over DNA fingerprinting,’Science 254: 1721–1723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Leslie (1992a). ‘Science in court: A culture clash,’Science 257: 732, 734–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Leslie (1992b). ‘Prosecutor v. scientist: A cat-and-mouse relationship,’Science 257: 733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, Carlos (1993). ‘Woman, 64, describes rape,’Washington Post, December 15: D4.

  • Sargeant, Georgia (1993). ‘DNA evidence finding stricter scrutiny, new uses,’Trial 29: 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, Diana and Joseph Marolla (1985). ‘Rape and vocabularies of motive: Alternative perspectives,’ in Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed.Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 294–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sensabaugh, George F. and Cecilia von Beroldingen (1991). ‘The polymerase chain reaction: Application to the analysis of biological evidence,’ in Mark A. Farley and James J. Harrington, eds.Forensic DNA Technology. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pp. 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, Beverly (1993). ‘Rape case's DNA tests botched, judge rules,’Atlanta Journal/Atlanta Constitution May 5: C2.

  • Sherman, Rorie (1993). ‘Controls proposed for DNA labs,’National Law Journal, April 19: 3, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwin, Susan (1992).No Longer Patient: Feminist Ethics and Health Care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shultz, Marjorie Maguire (1992). ‘Reasons for doubt: Legal issues in the use of DNA identification techniques,’ in Paul R. Billings, ed.DNA on Trial: Genetic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 19–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, Paul (1991). ‘DNA Identification Act,’Congressional Record — Senate, June 21: S8470.

  • State v. Nielsen, 467 N.W.2d 615, (Minn. 1991).

  • Stolberg, Sheryl (1992). ‘DNA tests clear man charged in rapes,’Los Angeles Times, February 21: B3.

  • Swift, Carolyn F. (1985). ‘The prevention of rape,’ in Ann Wolbert Burgess, ed.Rape and Sexual Assault. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, William C. (1992). ‘Genetics and criminal justice,’ in Stephen Brown and Karen Marshall, eds.Advances in Genetic Information. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments, pp. 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, William C. (1993). ‘Evaluating the admissibility of new genetic identification tests: Lessons from the “DNA war,”’Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 84: 22–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, William C. and Simon Ford (1991). ‘The meaning of a match: Sources of ambiguity in the interpretation of DNA prints,’ in Mark A. Farley and James J. Harrington, eds.Forensic DNA Technology. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishing, pp. 93–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey, Steve (1993). ‘Trials and errors,’Washington Post, May 3: D1, D6.

  • U.S. Congress (1990a). House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families.Victims of Rape. Hearing, June 28. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (1990b). Office of Technology Assessment.Genetic Witness: Forensic Uses of DNA Tests, OTA-BA-438. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d (D.Vt. 1990).

  • United States v. Yee (1990), ND, Ohio 129 FRD 692.

  • Wambaugh, Joseph (1989).The Blooding. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werrett, David J., Joan E. Lygo and John G. Sutton (1989). ‘The introduction of DNA analysis into Home Office Forensic Science Laboratories in England and Wales,’ in John Ballantyne, George Sensabaugh and Jan Witkowski,DNA Technology and Forensic Science. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 233–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • WGBH-TV (1993).Murder, Rape, and DNA. NOVA show #2008, March 2.

  • Wilker, Nachama L., Steven Stawski, Richard Lewontin and Paul R. Billings (1992). ‘DNA data banking and the public interest,’ in Paul R. Billings, ed.DNA on Trial: Genetic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, pp. 141–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, Franklin E. and Gordon J. Hawkins (1973).Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Genetics, Ethics and Women, 24 Berkshire Terrace, 01002, Amherst, MA, USA

    Helen Bequaert Holmes

Authors
  1. Helen Bequaert Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmes, H.B. DNA fingerprints and rape: A feminist assessment. Policy Sci 27, 221–245 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999889

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999889

Keywords

Search

Navigation