Slashdot Mirror
Familial DNA Testing Nabs Alleged Serial Killer
cremeglace writes "A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On July 7, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the 'Grim Sleeper.' The key evidence? A match between crime-scene DNA and the suspect's son, obtained by a search through the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons."
Most of the sociopaths running fortune 500 companies aren't serial killers, or rapists.
True, but that wouldn't stop them from hiring that work out if it were profitable, and if they thought they could get away with it. The main difference between a criminal and a business genius is that one understands more intricately the phrase "plausible deniability."
Biology, despite the movies, really doesn't work that way. You may find a gene... that gives them a 4% chance of being a serial killer, perhaps. Maybe. We think. But there is a good chance you won't find anything at all. Its not all in the DNA (epigenetics, nurture vs nature etc.)
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Because they will start "curing" homosexuality, skin color, or whatever happens to be unpopular at the moment.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
I'm sure my GF would disagree with the "trivial and simple", after she started hemorrhaging and nearly bled to death.
Om, nomnomnom...
Because their probably isn't one.
There may well be genes that impact the propensity to become a serial killer, but, even if there are, its not at all inconceivable that one that slightly increases the propensity to be a serial killer also has all kinds of socially beneficial effects, too, and that which effects manifest in any particular person vary based on environmental, rather than genetic, circumstances.
Regular policework found the bad guy from there. They stalked the suspect, who was nabbed after DNA was found on a meal that the suspect discarded. THAT DNA was the stuff that got him busted.
It may have been good police work or an attempt to circumvent the courts? If they had a prime suspect why didn't they get a warrant from a judge?
This is a dangerous slope because it says cops can obtain genetic material in any manner of their choosing. How long till cops work in restaurants and take samples from customers dirty dishes and match the dna to credit card receipts to find names?
IANAL so i can argue this point well, however it would seem that this search was illegal because there was no warrant to obtain evidence from the trash at the pizza joint.
my $0.02
DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.
The collision is a problem only if both are plausible suspects:
The Korean War vet in a California hospice is almost certainly not the serial rapist and killer who has been stalking women in New Jersey the past six months.
When you're talking about evidence where the death penalty is at issue, the ONLY acceptable collision rate is zero.
Better yet why not just inject come sheep dna into humans so that we can all follow the sheep leader with out any questioning.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The leap from "we have found certain genes that affected certain traits" to "it is possible to find a gene that makes a person a serial killer" is quite big. Furthermore, will that gene make everyone who has it a serial killer? What if it's partly genetics, partly environmental? Should we treat people with the gene who have not killed anyone as criminals?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
With millions of samples and what is it, 1 in 20000 unique people match each other in DNA tests? Then we can simply keep trying those will the correct age and geographic credentials until we get a convictions.
It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.
It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"
Now thats the ticket, and why stop there?
We could also shut off the gene that makes us eat to much junk food. We could shut off the gene that makes people like Brittaney Spears. Finally, I would love it if we could shut off the gene that makes people annoying and unable to understand that some things in life are complicated and not black and white.
Caution: This slope you're on... it's a slippery one.
Before long we're going to need complete isolation suits before we can commit a crime.
Surely you are more clever than that. Everyone knows that as the equipment of law enforcement become more and more sophisticated, the trick is not to circumvent them, but to exploit them. What if you made some careful plants of other people's DNA? What would the robot do? Frame someone!
Hell, you could even make a double-bluff and plant extraordinary evidence of yourself there, that law enforcement would think, 'oh, it can't possibly be him, he's not that clumsy; he must have been framed!'. The options are endless!
Clicked pie.
So based on the fact we can cure certain forms of immunodeficiency, blindness, deafness, and colourblindness, you conclude that there is/are (a) genes that controls whether someone will become a serial killer and can be altered without substantial side effects?
That's one hell of an unfounded leap. All of those conditions have known mechanisms of action (we know exactly what doesn't work properly) and have found the gene(s) is/are responsible for them. We have neither for serial killers/violent offenders, and I highly doubt there is any gene or set of genes that gives any reasonable probability of one becoming a serial killer or violent offender.
Even if there is a genetic root, current evidence shows it is massively correlated to environmental conditions. Here in Canada, a large percentage of dangerous offenders (criminals with long, violent histories serving indeterminate sentences) have Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
From a purely utilitarian point of view, executing anybody who is likely to consume more than they produce over the remainder of their life is a net-positive for society. That is almost exactly the definition of fascism.
I'm sorry, if some guy goes out and kills somebody, I can't do anything about that but try to catch him. However, if I support a law that lets my government kill innocent people as long as it is likely that they'll have a net savings of life then I'm the one with blood on my hands.
I'm not even really a big opponent of the death penalty. However, clearly it can't be applied in a utilitarian way.
fix my multiple sclerosis first!
and cancer, and parkinsons, and all the other diseases with known genetic contributing factors
just go back to watching AMW and keep your ass firmly planted on the couch, stay out of the way
csi isn't real, and the statistics used for these genetic databases can be debunked with some simple court room demonstrations
Yes, but often the defendant and *his brother* are both potential suspects.
This actually came up in a case I served on a jury for. The defense argued that the *other* brother could well have committed the crime, and given the poor quality of DNA evidence, we couldn't disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
DNA collision among close-knit racial groups is worth thinking about; collision within families is a serious problem.