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."
Nope - cant do it.
If we start removing the genes for sociopathy we will not have anyone left to be the CEO of the fortune 500 companies.
There has been some theoretical discussions about this idea before, but the general idea is not very popular right now.
Why don't they find the serial killer gene instead
It's on the list. Right after curing cancer.
The moral of the story is: finish your damn pizza.
Familial testing gave them the ballpark family.
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.
Well, there is precedent
The punishment involved the execution of close and extended family members.[3][20] These included:
The criminal's living parents
The criminal's living grandparents
Any children the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Any grandchildren the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Siblings and siblings-in-law (the siblings of the criminal and that of his or her spouse, in the case where he or she is married)
Uncles of the criminal, as well as their spouses
The criminal himself
Of course, for a complete wipe you'd want to get nieces and nephews too, a group strangely absent from the list of executed.
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.
I'm not saying he is innocent, but i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that he is guilty either.
In fact we may need to use SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) to be good enough for a database of millions (or eventually billions) to reduce collisions to acceptable levels.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
There has been some theoretical discussions about this idea before, but the general idea is not very popular right now.
None of the ideas which would actually work are popular. Doing anything to save the environment isn't popular. Doing anything about population growth is not popular.
But if we decide which ideas are good or bad based on whats popular this would explain why we are dying. I mean if we decide it's a good idea to continue giving birth to serial killers, and mentally retarded children when we could decide to have perfectly healthy children, sure it might not be a popular idea but it's still right.
Can anyone give me one reason why giving birth to disabled children is a good idea? Especially if we are talking about serial killers? From a utilitarian perspective, if given the option to have a child who is healthy or a child that is going to be a serial killer I'd choose the healthy child.
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."
If you had a serial killer in your family that makes you into a victim just by the fact that you have a serial killer in your family. It ruins your family reputation and dishonors your family be default.
No I don't think killing the families of serial killers would work because you cannot kill a bad gene. The only thing you can do about a bad gene which probably exists in most families, is to allow most families to have the option to give birth to offspring without having that gene activate itself. Also it's more ethical from a utilitarian perspective to spare human lives as taking lives makes and creates misery in the same way that the serial killer does.
My solution is logical because it would work and it would make the world happier and safer. Your solution is less logical because it wouldn't work and it would make the world miserable and more dangerous. When you shut off a gene in a fetus the fetus isn't harmed, nobody has to die. When you kill an entire family then a lot of people have to die.
So let me guess, you are anti abortion because you believe killing a fetus generates as much misery and damage as killing an adult?
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...
Familial searches from a DNA database the size of the one in California are very, very likely to produce false positives. For example, a study of the Arizona CODIS database carried out in 2005 showed that approximately 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci, that approximately 1 in every 1,489 profiles matched at 10 loci, 1 in 16,374 profiles matched at 11 loci, and 1 in 32,747 matched at 12 loci. http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html
With California currently having the third largest DNA database in the world, the odds of ANY new genetic evidence matching on a cold search is way too likely.
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.
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!
they had a guy four square for a brutal rape, but the guy was unconcerned. sure enough, the dna test came back and turned out he only shared half the dna with the culprit: the murderer must be the guy's brother
so they let him loose and track down brother after brother, sample his dna, and it turns out to be yet another brother. meanwhile, the woman who was raped is murdered, and they find a hair on her body that matches the original suspect's dna 100%
while examining the original suspect again, grissom sees that his skin is strangely mottled, and he has an interesting statue in his house: the legendary greek chimera
grissom cracks the case: the guy committed the rape because he knew he was a genetic chimera. the dna of his semen was the "brother" of the dna of his blood
http://www.csifiles.com/reviews/miami/bloodlines.shtml
a genetic chimera is an extremely rare individual in which fraternal twin zygotes are created, then fuse. so different organ lines in the body are from two different "individuals". you are your own twin, you are a mix of two people. there is also the real life case of a woman who became a criminal suspect because she was suspected of kidnapping: she claimed to be the mother of a child, but a genetic test reveals she was the aunt: her own ovaries weren't hers but from her "phantom sister"
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693&page=1
not that this is an argument against how they caught the grim sleeper, i applaud this use of genetic profiling of relatives to solve crimes. its simple sleuthwork, and plenty of innocent people come under suspicion all the time in criminal investigations that must be ruled out with basic detective work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
The main difference between a criminal and a business genius is that one got caught.
I direct you to my response to GP (well, with the "their/there" error corrected):
Because there probably isn't one.
I never said there was a social benefit of becoming a serial killer of any kind; I said that (because links between genes and behavior are rarely simple) its quite likely that if there is a gene or set of genes that increases the overall likelihood of someone with it becoming a serial killer, the same gene or set of genes could quite possibly also have other effects, which are socially beneficial. Whether in any particular person the undesirable effects, the desirable effects, both, or neither manifest could be (as is often the case) determined not by the genetics alone but the genetics combined with environmental triggers.
Caution: This slope you're on... it's a slippery one.
Cripes, that sounds like my crazy elderly dad. He thinks they should kill a murderer's family (you know, the people who *didn't* do the crime) in front of him. I keep explaining to him that serial killers are sociopaths who won't *care* if you kill their family (or even get off on it), but no go.
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
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that both down syndrome and psychopathy are genetic, and that as we can detect and prevent the former, so too should we be able to detect and prevent the latter. And I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.
My personal qualm with is not an ethical one, but a practical one. I sincerely doubt that the propensity for being a serial killer can be linked to a single gene, and I'm not even sure it can be described as genetic. Put simply, I do not think we will ever be able to screen for and prevent such traits.
The comparison to down syndrome is fundamentally incorrect, as down syndrome is entirely determined by a minor mutation on the gamete cell before conception leading to chromosomal trisomy. Meaning it's entirely caused by genetic, and not environmental, factors. Even if there is a genetic complex shared by all serial killers (which there is no evidence to suggest that I am aware of), it is likely that environmental factors in the killer-to-be's upbringing play a bigger role.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?
Were it possible, I would agree with you. It isn't. And isn't likely to be in the future either.
Look, your argument seems to be that:
A) Serial killers possess a common mental illness.
B) This illness is genetic (as in, 100% genetic with no other factors, like down syndrome)
C) Prenatal screening will one day be able to test for this illness, allowing a serial killer to be aborted or fixed in utero.
Is this correct? Have I got your argument right?
Now, the problem with this is B. Serial killers likely do share a common, rare mental illness. There is no evidence that it is genetic. In point of fact, most mental illnesses aren't genetic to begin with, as they're non-selective traits.
Illnesses like down syndrome are the exception, not the rule. Down syndrome is 100% genetic, without fail. Autism (to use an example you yourself brought up) is more typical; we've known about it for decades now, studied it extensively, and still don't know for sure what causes it. It's likely a constellation of factors, possibly including more than one distinct diagnosis based on causes that we aren't yet equipped to identify.
In other words, and if you take nothing else from my post please, please understand this, it is very likely that no serial killer gene or genes exist. You cannot screen for genetic factors in a non-genetic illness.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Really interesting story about a neuroscientist who studies the links between genes, neurobiology, and crime. He's always argued that genes determine behavior: serial killers are killers because of their genes and their brain structure. But one day, at the family barbecue, he learns that his family tree is full of violent criminals and killers, including the infamous axe-murderess Lizzy Borden. So as an experiment, he decides to do genetic testing and brain scans on his family. His mother, his siblings, his kids: all normal. No abnormal genes. No unusual brain activity. Except for *one* family member, one person who was tested and who has both the abnormal genes and abnormal brain activity linked with sociopathic behavior. The person? It's the researcher himself.
So, assuming the dude doesn't have a freezer full of dead hookers we haven't found out about, that would seem to argue that it's a little simplistic to argue that a gene or genes automatically turn you into a serial killer. Studies of mental disorders have long shown that these things are complicated. If you have an identical twin who's schizophrenic, odds are pretty good that you're going to be schizophrenic- but it's not even close to 100% of the time, it's more like 50%.
Let's look at this practically, though. Say that you find out your mother, your father, your brother, or your sister has a gene that is linked with sociopathic behavior. Should they be locked up or prevented from reproducing? What if a routine screening discovered that you had that gene?
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
If you don't want to have your DNA taken, then don't give it to anyone else. That includes progeny. Otherwise, anyone sampling your progeny's DNA will be able to get a guess as to yours. Though in this case, my understanding is that they had his DNA from a crime scene, but not on file. The partial hit got them to narrow down the search to a specific family, where they identified the most likely offender and tested him for a direct match.
So he left his DNA at a crime scene, then left it on some trash after the police had been following him. So as long as you don't leave your DNA at a crime scene, you won't have to worry. And as long as you don't raise armed robbers who get in the system for a match to you, you won't have to worry.
But in answer to your question, your son will be 50% your DNA (and 100% of his Y will be yours, and 100% of his mitochondrial DNA will be his mother's) so there will always be trackers in the case of children. Keeping your DNA under wraps includes not procreating.
Learn to love Alaska
Because their probably isn't one.
Or there is, but epigenetics plays a role in turning the gene on. So the gene may be present in a large part of the population (good luck filtering it out), but its not expressed in most of the carriers.
Its also possible that, even though this gene is turned on by some environmental condition, its continued expression can be handed down through several generations. So now, we's have to weed out those with the gene plus those exposed to the environmental switch. Plus descendants for several generations. Label someone as a risk because of what their grandfather did? Good luck with that.
Have gnu, will travel.
3) His signature contributed to the moderation.
For those who have them turned off, here is the complete post:
I'm sure my GF would disagree with the "trivial and simple", after she started hemorrhaging and nearly bled to death.
--
Om, nomnomnom...
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"