Abstract
The forensic use of DNA involves the public in a number of roles. The rapid adoption of DNA identification as a part of the legal system and continuing developments have afforded little opportunity to thoroughly interrogate public understandings of issues. This article reports on a survey that explores public understanding of the forensic use of DNA: sources of knowledge, understandings of processes, and attitudes toward DNA use. Overall, knowledge about DNA use was limited, particularly around means of taking samples and storage, and two thirds stated that they did not have enough information about DNA use. While the majority agreed that such use of DNA is “a great step forward,” they “would be happy to give a DNA sample if requested,” and considered DNA evidence to be important, concern was indicated about some areas, such as possible mistakes. This was particularly the case for indigenous peoples.
The forensic use of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is widely considered to be the “gold standard” of crime investigation methods (Leiberman, Carrell, Miethe, & Krauss, 2008), leading to convictions and exonerations with increased certainty throughout the Western world. Indeed, the establishment of New Zealand’s (the country in which the current research was conducted) national DNA databank in 1996 has resulted in world-leading conviction rates. Nearly 70% of all unsolved cases loaded to the crime sample databases are subsequently linked to individuals, and 30% linked to another crime (Environmental Science and Research, n.d.).
However, there is relatively limited insight into the public perceptions and expectations of forensic DNA use. Considering the significant potential impact of scientific advancements involving DNA, and roles as jurors, victims, witnesses, and friends and family of stakeholders, public understandings of the appropriateness of such technology are a legitimate concern (Guillen, 2000; Hawkins & O’Doherty, 2010). Therefore, it is important to gain insight into the public’s current level of knowledge regarding the forensic use of DNA, as well as into the formation of their associated attitudes and beliefs, particularly around privacy and cultural concerns (Stackhouse, Anderson, Shaw, & Iredale, 2010; Wilson-Kovacs, Wyatt, & Hauskeller, 2012). The current literature and popular media reveal conflicting views, which will be discussed below. Of particular interest has been the so-called “CSI effect.” The rapid adoption and establishment of DNA identification as an important part of the legal system, and continuing developments such as the expansion of databanks and familial searching, has afforded little opportunity to thoroughly interrogate these broader issues, though the area is being developed (see, e.g., Heinemann, Lemke, & Prainsack, 2012).
The purpose of the current research is to contribute to the development of a better understanding of public knowledge of and attitudes toward the forensic use of DNA. The current article reports on research conducted in New Zealand with a general population sample. In doing so, various social and ethical issues regarding genetic material were explored. The questions asked covered the sources of knowledge about forensic DNA use, knowledge of the current forensic use of DNA, trust, and the importance placed in DNA in hypothetical settings. Comparisons are drawn with international research.
The “CSI Effect”
The term CSI effect refers to the supposed phenomenon whereby crime television tends to depict DNA testing (and other forms of technology) as routine, swift, useful, and reliable (Ley, Jankowski, & Brewer, 2012), thereby heightening jurors’ expectations beyond what can be achieved and consequently resulting in more “not guilty” verdicts (Faguy, 2005; Huey, 2010). There has been some support for this effect, with an Australian study of solved and completed cases finding that cases with DNA evidence were more likely to reach court than those without, and incriminating DNA evidence was more likely to result in a conviction (Briody, 2004). Concern about the CSI effect has been expressed by those involved in law enforcement in a number of jurisdictions (see, e.g., Huey, 2010; Shelton, Barak, & Kim, 2011). Leiberman et al. (2008) found that students and jurors held similar perceptions regarding the accuracy and persuasiveness of DNA evidence regardless of differential exposure to positive media messages concerning forensic DNA use. In addition, students’ accuracy ratings of DNA evidence did not significantly differ according to differential exposure to negative media messages.
While earlier studies appeared to support the “CSI effect” (Briody, 2004; Faguy, 2005; Huey, 2010), more recent research disputes these findings (Cole, 2013; Leiberman et al., 2008; Ley et al., 2012; Shelton et al., 2011), or at least argues that the situation is more complex than originally assumed. For example, though Briody’s work appears to suggest that there is undue importance placed on DNA evidence, he notes the influence of external factors such as defendant and victim age and gender (Briody, 2004).
In a recent and comprehensive study, Brewer and Ley (2010) conducted phone interviews in the United States. They found that the majority of respondents (88%) stated that they would vote to convict a defendant on the basis of a DNA link, whereas just 38% stated that they would vote to acquit without a DNA link. Thus, respondents placed greater emphasis on the presence of a DNA link than its absence. Analyses of actual trials suggest that decisions are rather more complex, though an expectation of DNA evidence is common, as noted above (Leiberman et al., 2008; Shelton et al., 2011).
However, Brewer and Ley (2010) also analyzed their data by television-viewing habits and found that the heaviest viewers of television reported less understanding than the lightest viewers. Yet the heaviest viewers reported stronger belief in the reliability of DNA evidence and attached greater weight to its absence—but not its presence. When broken down further, there was no evidence that viewing crime television predicted the weight attached to the presence or absence of DNA, echoing other studies that have not found evidence of a “CSI effect” among research respondents (see, e.g., Podlas, 2005; Shelton et al., 2011). Brewer and Ley (2010) also discuss the impact of newspaper reading and television news, noting that these appear to predict support for a DNA databank with the former also predicting self-perceived understanding of DNA. Brewer and Ley argue for a shift of focus from jury decision making to broader public understandings of and confidence about DNA evidence, and for research to consider other forms of media. Shelton and colleagues reached similar conclusions, finding that although jurors strongly expect to see scientific evidence in criminal trials, these expectations do not necessarily result in related jury verdicts. They also noted that expectations are derived from a variety of sources and argue for an indirect-effects model, assuming a reciprocal system of interaction with media and a variety of cultural and individual factors. Edmond and Mercer (1997) and Lynch and McNally (2003) also raise important issues of juror competence when it comes to assessing scientific evidence.
Views of DNA Databanks
Internationally, public understanding of processes associated with the forensic use of DNA, such as storage, appear limited (Dundes, 2001; Gamero, Romero, Peralta, & Vide, 2003). For example, in Curtis’s (2009) New Zealand study, 28% of the respondents did not know that DNA was stored in a databank in some circumstances and those who did, did not know how it is stored.
Stackhouse et al. (2010) explored social and ethical views regarding the Wales’ DNA database through conducting focus groups with young people and found majority support for a universal DNA database established by taking DNA samples at birth. This is in agreement with a public discussion held by the Wales Gene Park and Techniquest (2007), which found that 60% of the participants supported a universal DNA databank. These findings contrast with that of the New Zealand findings whereby just 23% of respondents expressed support for a universal DNA database and only 20% supported a databank including new-borns’ DNA (Curtis, 2009). These New Zealand findings are particularly interesting considering 79% of the respondents agreed “I have no concerns about the use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool.” The New Zealand findings are, however, in agreement with a U.K. citizens’ inquiry that identified majority opposition to a universal DNA databank (Murtuja, Adris, & Ahmed,, 2008 ). This marked differing of views is also found among researchers, with some arguing for the fairness of universal databanks (see, e.g., Williamson & Duncan, 2002), while others raise concerns about appropriate use, especially in some underresourced countries (see, e.g., Kirby, 2002). Civil liberty groups and the media in general also frequently raise concerns about whose DNA is taken, and stored (Auckland District Law Society Public Issues Committee, 1995; Derienzo, 1999; Dodd, 2013; Flatow, 2013; GeneWatch UK, 2012, to mention a few).
Privacy Issues
The concern regarding DNA databanks as an invasion of privacy is a pervading theme. Curtis (2009) found that 53% of respondents were concerned about privacy issues surrounding the forensic use of DNA. This aligns with the findings by Levitt and Weldon (2002) in which six focus group discussions across the United Kingdom revealed a general distrust of the storage of genetic material. Moreover, the authors attributed this mistrust to a lack of knowledge concerning where the genetic information is stored, its security, who could gain access to it, and the potential for it to be used against individuals and collectives (Levitt & Weldon, 2002). This can be contrasted with the findings of Stackhouse et al. (2010), that participants tended to emphasize the positives of forensic DNA use rather than dwell on privacy concerns. This may relate to the expansion of social networking and other media altering people’s perceptions and expectations regarding privacy. However, “privacy” includes a number of areas, such as inappropriate use, the expansion of databases, and types of searches such as familial searches using DNA and surname searches (Rothstein & Talbott, 2006).
Public concern about inappropriate use of DNA is another area where research has produced mixed results. While Stackhouse et al. (2010) found that many expressed concern regarding the potential to be “framed,” unlike in the Wales Gene Park and Techniquest enquiry (2007), there was little concern about national DNA databases being used by employers and insurance companies (Stackhouse et al., 2010), though Curtis found that 60% of respondents were concerned that DNA samples could potentially be used for another purpose than solving crime (Curtis, 2009). The potential for “function creep,” whereby databases designed for specific purposes gradually become used for alternative purposes, is an emerging theme in the literature and public discourse (Derienzo, 1999). This is concerning considering the potential implications for a mistrusted justice system (Bradford, 2011). Levitt and Weldon (2002) acknowledged that their participants’ individual and social concerns regarding the regulation of human genetics may not be alleviated by public consultation or transparency, due to both the special character of genetic material and the difficulty in establishing trustworthy governance arrangements. From this basis, the authors concluded that for the public to have trust in the storage of genetic material, they must have evidence of a relationship between themselves and the governing body, with expectations and obligations on both sides (Levitt & Weldon, 2002).
As discussed by Rothstein and Talbot (2006), in addition to database expansion and inappropriate use of DNA, familial searching is a concern, opening up possibilities for DNA samples to be used for reasons different to those under which it was supplied (Murphy, 2010). There are currently no legal parameters around this use of DNA in many jurisdictions, including New Zealand. The concerns around familial searching are outlined by Haimes (2006) and Williams and Johnson (2006) as violating the privacy of both the persons who provided the sample and their biological relatives, reinforcing perceptions of criminality within certain families, revealing relatives on a database, revealing the existence of a previously unknown biological relationship, and revealing the absence of a previously held biological relationship. Considering both familial searching and the potential for “function creep,” the findings by Curtis (2009), whereby 60% of respondents expressed concerns over DNA being used for another purpose and 48% expressing ethical concerns over forensic DNA use, are understandable. Alongside this are issues of DNA ownership, power, and differing views of body tissue.
Cultural Issues
In addition to questions of “biopower” (Toom, 2012) and the special nature of genetic material (Levitt & Weldon, 2002) more generally, there are cultural concerns regarding the forensic use of DNA. These include differing perceptions of the ownership of the body, such as collective rights, the overrepresentation of some cultural or ethnic groups as victims or perpetrators of crime (or both; see, e.g., Gardiner, 2005-2006) and consequent calls for increased sampling of those groups. These concerns may be particularly relevant to Māori (the indigenous people of New Zealand) considering their more collectivist culture (Fox & Podsiadlowski, 2011). In addition, Māori are overrepresented both as victims and perpetrators of crime (as measured by police apprehensions and convictions).
While the dominant European view of DNA may be that its value is in the information derived from it, the Māori worldview is often more holistic, linking the physical and spiritual realms. This means that the use of genetic material evokes different concerns, particularly the ownership of and permission to use genetic material (Curtis, 2009; Health Research Council of New Zealand, 1995; Hudson, Allan, Bedford, Buckleton, & Stuart, 2008). Curtis (2009) also found that Māori were more likely to express concern regarding privacy issues and DNA being “planted” at crime scenes, echoing the general distrust of DNA evidence by minority groups in the United States (Duster, 2006).
Concerns regarding the overrepresentation of minority groups in databanks have been raised in several jurisdictions, such as with regard to aboriginal Australians (Gardiner, 2005-2006). Brewer and Ley (2010) also identified that African American respondents expressed less belief in the reliability in forensic DNA, attached less weight to the presence of DNA evidence, and expressed less support for a national DNA database. While it may be problematic to discuss categories of offenders in terms of police apprehensions and convictions, nonetheless, there appears to be an ethnicity-based disparity. Māori comprised 15% of the New Zealand population at the 2013 census. However, 45.3% of people apprehended for crimes in the 2012/2013 year were Māori (New Zealand Department of Statistics, 2013). Of those convicted of crimes in the 2012/2013 year, 41% were of European descent, 38% were Māori, and 10% of Pacific Island descent (Ministry of Justice, 2013; New Zealand Department of Statistics, 2013). Given the drop from 45% of apprehensions to 38% of convictions, it may be the case that Māori are more likely to be apprehended inappropriately than other ethnic groups (though all people apprehended may be released without charge, or not convicted for a variety of reasons; warned, referred to youth justice services, etc.).
Māori have an additional justification for concern about crime. Māori (and “other” ethnicities, that is, minority groups that are so small that they tend to be categorized together, in New Zealand typically including middle-Eastern, Latin American, and African) are significantly more likely to be victims of crime in general than any other ethnic group, though Pacific Islanders have a high likelihood of being victims of burglary. The national average risk of being a victim of crime is 36% per annum, 1 but is 13 percentage points higher for Māori. However, 6% of the population experience 54% of the crime (Justice Sector Strategy Group: Morrison, Smith, & Gregg, 2010); that is, a small proportion are victimized multiple times. Again, Māori are overrepresented, with a 12% deviation from the average risk of being victimized more than once per annum (Justice Sector Strategy Group: Morrison, Smith, & Gregg, 2011). However, this is somewhat complicated by the fact that Māori, Pacific Island, and “other” ethnicities are also more likely to be young, unemployed, living in social housing or renting, and in economically deprived areas, all risk factors for victimization. Nonetheless, it is unsurprising that research has found that though 34% of the population think that crime is a problem in their community, 42% of Māori respondents think this (Morrison, Smith, & Gregg, 2010).
Thus, the public perception of DNA’s forensic use entails ethnicity-related issues such as individual versus collective rights, the potential to unduly focus on racial disparities regarding crime statistics and differing beliefs around the use of human tissue (Curtis, 2009; Dodson, 1999; Duster, 2006; Hayward, 1997).
Overall, the international literature concerning public understandings and attitudes toward the forensic use of DNA reflects conflicting conclusions and many important gaps for future research to explore. Throughout the international research, there are pervasive themes surrounding the collection, storage, and use of DNA for forensic purposes including the conclusiveness of DNA evidence, its potential to cause harm to individuals and stigmatize groups, the security of DNA databanks, and the potential for “function creep.” In addition, the New Zealand public’s perceptions and expectations involve important cultural issues which require further insight.
Method
This research consisted of a computer-assisted telephone (landline) survey conducted with a broadly representative, randomized sample (n = 394) of the adult population, drawn from telephone directories. Further information on the questionnaire development process, sample, and procedure is given below.
Materials and Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire development began with consultation with specialists in the forensic use of DNA from the institute of Environmental Science and Research. To maximize appropriateness and validity, community consultation with stakeholders including Māori academics and community organizations (the Department of Corrections [Probation Service], Māori Women’s Welfare League, Prisoner’s Aid and Rehabilitation Services, Rape Crisis, Victim Support, and Women’s Refuge) was carried out. This was followed by trialing the resultant questionnaire with members of the interview team and associates. A pilot study was then conducted with 100 respondents, and minor wording changes resulted along with the addition of a small number of questions. The final questionnaire comprised a combination of both closed and open questions, across a number of dimensions including knowledge of and attitudes toward current procedures, beliefs about crime, and issues of trust and ethics.
Respondents
The respondents were 394 New Zealand residents aged 16 years and older, drawn from a random sample of listed telephone numbers. 2 The sample was close to being representative of the adult population of New Zealand, except that with regard to gender, it comprised 139 men and 254 women. The age was somewhat older than the population, with the mean, median, and mode all being in the 40 to 49 age group, though this is likely to be an artifact of excluding respondents aged less than 16 years. The sample was largely representative of the New Zealand population with regard to ethnicity, though those of European descent are somewhat overrepresented: 83.0% of European descent (approximately 74% at the 2013 national census); 12.4% Māori (approximately 15%), 4.1% Polynesian, and 2.8% of Asian descent (respondents were able to choose more than one ethnicity, both in this research and in the census, which is used for comparison purposes; New Zealand Department of Statistics, 2014).
The respondents’ household median annual income was in the bottom reaches of the $70,000 to $80,000 range (equivalent to approximately $US60,640 to $US69,300), very slightly lower than the national average of $81,067 (income from all regular sources [Statistics New Zealand]; approximately $US68,575). The sample seems to largely represent the general population with regard to education, with 41.4% holding some form of tertiary qualification (including trade training, or a professional qualification such as nursing, or a university diploma or degree); 11.4% held no educational qualifications at all, while 14.3% held a graduate or postgraduate degree.
Political preferences appear somewhat right-wing or conservative, as ascertained by asking “Who did you vote for in the last [2011] general election?” though 5.8% refused to answer the question and a further 12.7% replied that they did not vote. Of those whose vote is known, 50.5% voted for the current main conservative party, National (slightly more than the 47% of the votes this party actually received in the election), while 28.3% voted for the main opposing party, the center-left Labour (approximately 27%).
Procedure
Potential respondents were telephoned outside normal working hours, given a brief introduction to the purpose of the research, and asked to participate. If the potential respondent was unsure, the interviewers encouraged their participation with further information or asked if there was someone else in the household who may be interested in participating. If the respondent indicated that the timing of the phone call was inconvenient the interviewers arranged a more convenient time to call back. If the respondent indicated a definite refusal, the interviewers thanked them for their time and terminated the call. Because of the particular relevance of this research to Māori, a decision was taken to ensure not less than 10% Māori participation. When it became apparent that this target would not be achieved without intervention, interviewers began screening for ethnicity, interviewing only Māori.
If potential respondents agreed, the interview began immediately, and lasted approximately 18 minutes, though varying between 9 and 32 minutes. Survey software (Qualtrics) was used, with data entered in real time. These data were subsequently exported to SPSS for analysis.
The research was approved by the School of Psychology Ethics Committee at the Uniersity of Waikato..
Results
The following section provides the main results of the survey. These are grouped into three sections: knowledge of DNA use, attitudes toward DNA use, and the perceived importance of DNA use. Table titles usually reflect the actual question asked, except where the table includes several questions.
Knowledge of DNA Use
The first question asked the respondents if they had heard about DNA being used by the police. The 380 who had were then asked to identify the sources of their knowledge about DNA. The majority of respondents named more than one source, as shown in Table 1. By far the most common information source identified was television: either news or documentaries (volunteered by 86.1% of respondents) and/or fiction programs (volunteered 74.6%), followed by newspapers (48.2%). All remaining responses were volunteered by fewer than 100 people. Though one might think that the Internet is an increasingly common source of knowledge, only 12.2% mentioned this possible source.
Responses to “Thinking about what you know about DNA use for solving crimes, where did you get this information from?”
Note. N = 380.
Multiple responses allowed, so adds to more than 100%.
Respondents were then asked which one of these sources they considered most influential. Again, television news/documentaries were cited by many (n = 116; 33.1% of 350 responses), but very slightly more indicated fictional television shows (n = 119; 34.0%). Third was newspapers at 25 (7.1%), with the remaining options each receiving less than 5%.
All respondents answered a question concerning how forensic DNA samples are taken and many (incorrectly) identified multiple sources. While there were 283 correct responses (mouth swab/saliva/spit; from 71.8% of respondents; as multiple responses were possible), there were also 212 incorrect responses, with 130 (33.3% of respondents) replying “a blood sample.” Further information is provided in Table 2. Those of European descent were more likely than other ethnic groups to respond correctly: χ2(2, N = 394) = 23.1, p < .001. No other significant differences between groups were found.
Responses to “When the police want to take a DNA sample from someone suspected of a crime, or for elimination, how do you think this sample is taken?”
Note. N = 394.
Multiple responses allowed, so adds to more than 100%.
The first question in a series concerning DNA databanks enquired whether the respondents knew that sometimes DNA samples are stored in a databank. The subsample of 77% (n = 306) who did know this were then asked how DNA is stored in the databank. Multiple responses were allowed, and as represented in Table 3, a number of responses were given. Of particular note, though, is that nearly one third of the respondents (n = 101) replied that they did not know.
Responses to “How is DNA stored in the databank?”
Note. N = 306.
Multiple responses allowed, so adds to more than 100%.
When the responses to these questions were broken down further, some significant differences were found between ethnic groups. Overall, respondents of European descent tended to have better knowledge of usage processes and were more likely to have gained their knowledge from newspapers—perhaps more accurate sources of such knowledge. Key findings are given in Table 4 (due to the large number of tables, some with many cells, that would otherwise be required, only significant results are shown, though percentages for all ethnic groups are given for the significant results, so that comparisons can be made). There was only one other significant difference in knowledge between groups; men were more likely to correctly identify the means of taking a sample: χ2(1, N = 394) = 7.8, p < .005.
Significant Differences in Knowledge of DNA Use, by Ethnic Group.
Note. N = 394.
Attitudes Toward and DNA Use
Table 5 presents the key responses to a series of general questions regarding attitudes toward the forensic use of DNA. Though many responses were positive, some of these results appear rather contradictory (it should be noted that these questions were asked in random order, to limit responses being influenced by previous questions). Three quarters of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would be happy to give a DNA sample if asked by the police. The majority of respondents also stated that they completely trusted that a DNA sample taken in a criminal investigation would be used appropriately and thought that the use of DNA for fighting crime was a great step forward. The majority of respondents disagreed with the statement that “people should not be made to give DNA samples against their will.” Surprisingly, given the previous research into cultural issues, the majority disagreed with the question, “Would you say that you are concerned about cultural issues around the use of DNA?” 3 . However, a majority of respondents also felt that they did not have enough information regarding the police’s use of DNA, indicated concern that mistakes could be made and that DNA could be “planted.” Of particular interest, this sample appears relatively unconcerned about privacy issues. Further details are provided in Table 5.
Key Results Regarding Attitudes to DNA Use: “Would you say that you . . .”.
Note. N = 393.
Other results in this series showed no strong beliefs in either direction.
As above, further analysis revealed some significant differences across ethnic groups, and also according to political preferences. New Zealand European respondents exhibited greater trust and less concerns about ethical or privacy issues than other groups, across almost every question. For example, they were more likely to agree that they were “fully confident in the ability of DNA to provide an error-free tool for solving crime”; that they “completely trust the owners of the DNA database”; “would be happy to give a sample”; and “have no concerns about DNA use”; while disagreeing that they are concerned “DNA could be used for another purpose” or “about ethical issues”; and are concerned that “mistakes could be made.” Key results are shown in Table 6, with percentage agreement given for European and Māori ethnicities for comparison purposes.
Significant Differences in Attitude, by Ethnic Group.
Note. N = 393.
In general, the more conservative (republican-like) National party voters (as determined by who they voted for in the last general election) were more likely to be favorably disposed toward the forensic use of DNA, including agreeing that they “completely trust that a sample taken would be used appropriately” and that “the use of DNA is a great step forward,” and to disagree with the statements that they are concerned “that DNA taken for one purpose could be used for another” and “about cultural issues.” Key significant differences are illustrated in Table 7. Those who voted for the Labour (relatively liberal/democratic) and Green parties tended to disagree that “DNA can provide an error-free tool for solving crime,” that they “completely trust that a sample would be used appropriately,” and to have privacy and cultural concerns.
Significant Differences in Attitude, Conservative Voters.
Note. N = 393.
Respondents were next asked about the targeting of specific groups. First they were asked “Do you think some groups are more likely to be involved in crime than the average person?” The vast majority, 80.2%, answered “yes” (of the remainder, 11.9% answered “no” and the rest didn’t know). Respondents who had answered yes were then asked “Which groups?” As shown in Table 8, the most common response was “poor people” followed by “Māori,” “gang members,” “Pacific Islanders” (Polynesians), then a large drop down to “young people,” with all other responses volunteered by less than 10% of the sample. More than 50 responses were volunteered, many at low numbers for each, such as 17 (4.3%) suggesting drug users and/or drug dealers. No other group was mentioned by more than four respondents. Respondents were then asked, “If a law change was proposed so that the police could specifically target members of this (these) group(s), to take DNA if they are suspected of a crime (even if there is insufficient evidence to arrest them), would you support that?” The results indicate a strong negative response: 24.4% were strongly not in favor, 23.9% not in favor (total not in favor = 48.3%), 12.3% neutral, 16.2% in favor, and 8.4% strongly in favor.
Responses to “Which groups are more likely to be involved in crime?”
Note. N = 316.
Multiple responses allowed, so percentages add to more than 100.
Importance of DNA Evidence
Last, respondents were asked a series of questions aimed at ascertaining perceptions of the importance of DNA evidence in trials. Respondents were asked to indicate how important such evidence would be on a scale from one to five, 4 if they were a juror, for four different types of crime: (a) a minor crime, for example, a small theft; (b) a major crime of dishonesty, for example, a theft worth a very large amount of money; (c) a sexual offence 5 ; (d) a serious assault resulting in hospitalization. As may be expected, the more serious the crime, the more important DNA evidence was seen to be. It is interesting to note, however, that DNA evidence was considered rather more important for sexual offences. Response rates for all scenarios are given in Table 9.
Responses to “On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is vitally important and 5 is not at all important, if you were a judge or on a jury, how important do you think DNA evidence would be in coming to a decision about whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty?”
Note. N = 393 (all questions).
Discussion
This research has further explored knowledge, perceptions, and expectations of the forensic use of DNA, the national DNA databank, and related processes and justice issues. The questions asked covered the sources of knowledge about forensic DNA use, knowledge of the current forensic use of DNA, and related attitudes. Thus, a broader range of related topics and issues were captured, on a larger scale than has been achieved by many of the other studies exploring public understanding of such issues.
In terms of where the respondents gained their knowledge concerning the forensic use of DNA, the research findings were in agreement with previous research whereby the majority of respondents reported the most influential source as being television fiction or drama (30.2%) or television news or documentaries (29.4%). It is possible that this finding is related to misinformation and lack of depth of understanding of the processes involved in DNA profiling and storage. Furthermore, as the majority of respondents (93.9%) believed that the forensic use of DNA was a great step forward the findings may also reflect the conclusion by Brewer and Ley (2010) that watching crime television predicted belief in the reliability of DNA evidence. It is of note that despite the availability of information via the Internet, this source appeared to be rarely used, either as one of several sources (volunteered by 12.2%) or as a key influence (<1.0%).
The findings suggest that knowledge of the processes surrounding the current forensic use of DNA are limited. Almost half of the responses regarding how a DNA sample is taken were incorrect (250/533, with 33.0% of respondents stating that the DNA was collected with a blood sample) and there were a further 38 “Don’t know” responses. The research also reflects the finding by Leiberman et al. (2008) that there was public confusion through conflation of DNA evidence with blood type evidence (and three respondents confused DNA with fingerprints).
In terms of the storage of forensic DNA, the results also suggest a lack of knowledge with 21.6% not knowing it may be stored, and a further 33.0% (of the total sample) answering that they did not know how it is stored. When taken together with the fact that 64.6% answered affirmatively to the question, “Would you say that you don’t have enough information about the police’s use of DNA,” the findings strongly suggest that the New Zealand public may not possess sufficient knowledge to understand and evaluate the complexity of forensic evidence. Furthermore, there is no particular reason to think that this sample is significantly different from elsewhere in the Western world; given the importance of television as a source of information (with 59.6% naming television as the most influential source of their knowledge), it is worth noting that the majority of programs on New Zealand television originate in the United Kingdom or the United States.
The potential of DNA for crime-fighting was clearly recognized by respondents and most indicated that they would be willing to provide a DNA sample to the police if asked, trusted that it would be used appropriately, and considered that the use of DNA “is a great step forward.” Somewhat contradictorily, when asked about specific possible concerns:
66.9% were concerned that mistakes might be made
58.0% were concerned about DNA being “planted”
51.9% were concerned about related ethical issues (approximately 40.5% unconcerned and the remainder neutral)
51.4% were concerned about privacy issues (approximately 44.5% unconcerned)
Of course, it must be acknowledged that merely being asked these questions may be sufficient to engender concern, although the questions were asked in random order and interspersed with positive framings.
Despite concerns, respondents acknowledged the usefulness of DNA, particularly for serious crime, with 85.5% considering DNA evidence to be vital or important for sexual offences (approximately 71.9% for an assault resulting in hospitalization). It is possible that respondents consider it more likely that DNA will be available for such trials; further research is necessary before conclusions can be drawn. With regard to the “CSI effect,” the picture remains somewhat unclear. As discussed above, there is some research (see, e.g., Brewer & Ley, 2010; Briody, 2004; Faguy, 2005; Huey, 2010) that suggests that the CSI effect exists, but it appears more complex than previously thought (Cole, 2013; Leiberman et al., 2008; Ley et al., 2012; Shelton et al., 2011). For example, Shelton et al. (2011) found that although DNA evidence was expected, this did not necessarily influence verdict decisions, and Shelton and colleagues argue for consideration of other factors. The respondents in the current research did express fairly nuanced views about the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases, as shown in response to four alternative scenarios, suggesting that distinctions about the importance or availability of DNA evidence are drawn. This may contradict the assumption that CSI and other television programs have led to the public expecting DNA evidence to be available for all crimes. Although television “fiction” was one of three main sources of information on the forensic use of DNA, this may be counterbalanced by the high use of television news and documentaries, and newspapers, perhaps providing a more realistic portrayal of the availability of DNA evidence. Yet participants demonstrated low levels of knowledge of procedures and some distrust, which may be as important as the “CSI effect” with regard to juror competence. Broader concerns about juror competence have been raised in other research, though some years ago (Edmond & Mercer, 1997; Lynch & McNally, 2003). Again, it would seem that further research would be helpful.
As discussed above, the public’s perception entails ethnicity-related issues such as individual versus collective rights, the potential to unduly focus on racial disparities regarding crime statistics, and differing beliefs around the use of human tissue (Curtis, 2009; Duster, 2006; Gardiner, 2005-2006). The concern around the potential for the forensic use of DNA to increase ethnic disproportion regarding crime statistics is particularly relevant considering that 40.8% of respondents believed Māori were more likely to be involved in a crime and 30.7% felt that Pacific Islanders were more likely than the average person to be involved in criminal activity. However, the majority were not in favor of a hypothetical law change to target members of those groups. In fact, 45.3% nominated “poor people” (or similar wording) as being most likely to be involved in crime, perhaps reflecting an awareness of socioeconomic drivers of crime, and some empathy for these (as mentioned above, members of these ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be living in poverty).
The current study revealed significant differences across ethnic groups, in terms of knowledge of DNA processes, sources of information about the forensic use of DNA, and levels of trust and concern. Those groups that are most concerned and least knowledgeable also appear to be those that rely on the least accurate sources of information. In contrast, respondents of European ethnicity were significantly more likely than other respondents to have gained their knowledge of the forensic use of DNA from newspapers, suggesting that their knowledge may have been more based on actual events rather than the fiction portrayed in most other information sources cited. It may be due to this that the respondents of European descent generally had higher levels of knowledge and of trust. However, cultural issues have been noted as an important factor both in previous research (see, e.g., Curtis, 2009; Derienzo, 1999; Dodson, 1999; Fox & Podsiadlowski, 2011; Gardiner, 2005-2006; Haimes, 2006; Stackhouse et al., 2010) and the current study.
Previous research (Dodson, 1999; Duster, 2006; Fox & Podsiadlowski, 2011; Health Research Council of New Zealand, 1995; Hudson et al., 2008) has discussed cultural issues especially with regard to collective values, including in New Zealand. However, the more ambivalent views of Māori in particular may also stem from a different experiential history of criminal justice and government authorities more generally. For example, Rumbles (2011) discusses systemic factors and bias that result in Māori tending to “accumulate” (p. 108) in the justice system. It seems likely that Māori will also tend to “accumulate” distrust.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. These relate to the sample, which (at a total of 394) is quite small. However, it is broadly representative of the population (which is also relatively small, at 4.4 million). In addition, it is not known how relevant the findings of this study are to other countries. Nevertheless, key sources of information such as television programs would appear to have similar content to those from other Western countries—and indeed (as noted above), are very often made in the United States or the United Kingdom—so it seems likely that similar results would be found elsewhere.
Implications and Further Research
This research has highlighted a number of areas that require further exploration. These include further research into knowledge of and attitudes toward the storage of DNA, such as the circumstances under which DNA can, and should, be stored (such as type of crime, persons apprehended for crimes vs. convicted offenders, or all new-borns) and the length of storage. Comments made to interviewers suggest that the public have limited knowledge of such procedures, but potentially have strong views. Importantly, the reasons underlying mistrust and the expectations and importance placed on DNA evidence for sexual offences are particularly ripe for further investigation. In terms of other applications, it is clear that the public lack knowledge of the forensic use of DNA, which could have an impact on jury decisions.
In conclusion, although views of DNA appear positive at first, they are contradictory when probed further. It is also clear that although the respondents in the current research recognize the value of the forensic use of DNA, they do not consider it necessary for all trials, especially for lesser crimes. At the same time, knowledge of processes appears seriously lacking, and distrust is common, especially among those most likely to be effected by crime.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Hannah Marsden provided assistance with the literature search.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was provided by the University of Waikato (Grant No. 10 4601 E012).