Political correctness puts a useful DNA test out of bounds?
posted at 11:25 am on January 2, 2008 by Bryan
In the summer of 2002, the FBI, the Baton Rouge Police Department, and several other agencies began a massive search for a serial killer suspected of murdering three women. Based on an FBI profile and an eyewitness report, they upended southern Louisiana looking for a white man who drives a white pickup, collecting DNA from more than 1,000 Caucasian males. They found nothing. Meanwhile, the killer struck again.
In March 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the suspect’s race by analyzing his DNA. Uncertain about the science, the police asked Frudakis to take a blind test: They sent him DNA swabs from 20 people to see if he could identify their races. He nailed every one.
On a conference call a few weeks later, Frudakis reported his results on their killer. “Your guy could be African-American or Afro-Caribbean, but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian.” There was a prolonged silence, followed by a flurry of questions. They all came down to this: Would Frudakis bet his life on his results? Absolutely.
We’re not talking about racial profiling here, but hard science that helps solve crimes. In this case, the science came in and the police stopped looking in all the wrong directions and caught their killer. Read the rest of the story but make sure to get all the way to the end to meet a prosecutor who should look for another line of work.
Tony Clayton, a black man and a prosecutor who tried one of the Baton Rouge murder cases, concedes the benefits of the test: “Had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pickup.” Nevertheless, Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.” He adds, “If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”
Had it not been for the DNA test, this prosecutor wouldn’t have a case, a killer would still be on the loose and the police would be wasting valuable time and resources looking in the wrong places. But political correctness trumps all, so it’s better to throw away a valuable crimefighting tool that leads to the right suspect than to solve crimes in a way that leads directly to the perp. Political correctness has turned too many good minds to goo.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Jeez…a judge wants a technology to find and identify villianous criminals and put them away to disappear?!?! That’s just painfully illogical and over-the-top PC.
American_Pride1701 on January 2, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Tony Clayton… that’s not Mike Nifong in blackface is it?
nosliwelyk on January 2, 2008 at 11:32 AM
What a racist attitude to have. Clayton would make the technology disappear because he doesn’t like the fact that a persons race can be determined by their blood. Only a true racist would think that way.
Jaynie59 on January 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM
That is painful. I wonder when Jesse and Al are going to chime in?
Zetterson on January 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I’d bet his overblown paycheck that he’d be singing a different tune if this technology cleared a black man.
CurtZHP on January 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Wow. Behold the Useful Idiot, he suffers fools gladly.
Of course this angle also makes it impossible to conduct this sort of ancestral roots research also. What would Alex Haley do?
Buy Danish on January 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I dunno. What happens to the DNA data base collected on the innocents who were screened? Or is this one of those, “If you haven’t done anything wrong, it should’nt bother you” kind of deals like the cop who just wants to look through your car without a warrant?
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Wait a sec.
What I want to know is how did the police collect DNA from 1,000 white males.
Labamigo on January 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I wish my DNA was a matter of public record. It’s so awesomely awesome Jessica Alba would’ve wanted ME to be the baby’s daddy.
tlynch001 on January 2, 2008 at 11:50 AM
That right there is the money quote!
Tim Zank on January 2, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Hired a mellanin-inclined exotic dancer from Durham, NC.
BKennedy on January 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM
If I’m not thinking of a different case, they volunteered to clear themselves.
Tim Zank on January 2, 2008 at 11:53 AM
This has to be one of THE MOST IDIOTIC STATEMENTS I HAVE EVER HEARD!!
This guy is a moron!
Troy Rasmussen on January 2, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Keep in mind this is from Louisiana and writer of this Wired article did not state the source of the these quotes. I doubt wired magazine does investigatory reporting.
In fact, I call foul. This article was published previously by someone else in 2003.
Egfrow on January 2, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Too bad the truth doesn’t fit the media template. Sorry, no story here.
Mojave Mark on January 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Paris Hilton?
The more you try to cover the world under one blanket the harder it becomes….
We are not all the same. not better, not worse, just different….
CBarker on January 2, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I’m not sure I quite understand the objection. Everybody think’s it’s OK for an eye witness to identify a subject as black or white. So why should it be any different for an expert witness to (positively) identify a subject as black or white?
morganfrost on January 2, 2008 at 12:00 PM
That is absolutely amazing. Then I guess it is not okay to use DNA to vindicate a wrongly accused black man. To make a
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Hey, this is Louisiana. It must be George Bush and FEMA’s fault!!!
Sugar Land on January 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Not to quibble, but this has nothing at all to do with political correctness.
This is nothing but rock-stupid idiocy in high office.
thejackal on January 2, 2008 at 12:02 PM
We live in a day where the truth is taboo.
Mr. prosecutor. You can’t handle the truth.
TheSitRep on January 2, 2008 at 12:06 PM
So – this can only mean that the test for sickle-cell anemia should ‘disappear’ too, right?
Right?
Timothy S. Carlson on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
“If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would.”
And likewise, if I could push a button to make prosecutors like him disappear, I would.
Clayton says he dislikes anything that implies we don’t all “bleed the same blood.”
Different stupid, not better, not worse.
leanright on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Not exactly accurate. The incident happened in 2002 and the case was solved in 2003. The article you linked to was specifically about that case. The article Bryan links to MENTIONS that 2002/2003 case in relation to recent events.
It’s not a reprint of an old article.
Gregor on January 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Last year, the ctvnews.com website in Canada reported on a case and reported the suspects as “non-white”.
I wanted to send them a colour chart and see if they could possibly narrow the colour down further. Infuriating.
Canadian Infidel on January 2, 2008 at 12:22 PM
So are they looking for a white guy in a black pickup now?
James on January 2, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Either those 1,000 men gave up their DNA without a warrant in order to clear themselves of a horrible crime, or their DNA was taken with a warrant.
Either way, there’s nothing scary about a police state issue here. Their DNA wasn’t taken randomly. If the men choose to give up their DNA, then they did so because proving their innocence otherwise was less important to them than getting the case over with quickly. If a warrant was issued, then the judge who issued the warrant felt enough evidence had been gathered to implicate those 1,000 men.
The latter is unlikely, which means those men allowed their DNA to be taken and stored.
As far as the car issue is concerned, there’s nothing wrong with refusing to allow your car to be searched. It doesn’t implicate you in a crime and isn’t at all unwise.
Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 12:32 PM
The reason this is so explosive is that for the longest time folks have been saying there are NO genetic differences between blacks and whites. Along comes this test and lo and behold there is…pretty explosive.
PierreLegrand on January 2, 2008 at 12:42 PM
If not for DNA they wouldn’t have caught and prosecuted Derrick Todd Lee. There was only one eyewitness, a survivor from another case in another parish (parish=county) and until they found out the DNA belonged to a black man they had dismissed the link. Everyone was looking for a white male. While many volunteered to a DNA test a few didn’t and although I think it’s still in the courts the local authorities have refused to destroy the DNA samples they took of innocent men.
I know a guy that was on the task force. Immediately after finding the link they issued a warrant to obtain Derrick Todd Lee’s DNA. They had previously dismissed any evidence looking at a non-white male. The police blew this investigation and stopped letting the evidence lead them to the killer.
Clayton is a good prosecutor and I don’t understand why he would want this technology to go away.
roux on January 2, 2008 at 12:43 PM
DNA profiling has been around for about 20 years now.
Blake on January 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM
But, if a man refused to volunteer when asked, would he then be considered a suspect and would that then be a basis for a warrant to be issued? If a person refuses to take a lie detector test, is that a consideration if law enforcement requests a warrant? I realize lie detector tests aren’t admissible in court, but can they be used as a lever?
a capella on January 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM
And those folks are idiots. Anyone with a middle school science education knows there are genetic differences between blacks and whites. Just like there are genetic differences between blonds and brunettes, between a person with blue eyes and a person with brown eyes, between a male and a female.
CurtZHP on January 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM
It seems that he just wishes there were no difference between a black person’s blood and a white person’s blood.
Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM
James Watson was right. It’s sad that a highly regarded scientist (with a slightly loose mouth) was forced into retirement.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Not likely. If police weren’t able to get a warrant for these 1,000 men, refusal wouldn’t give them enough evidence to change that judge’s mind. Refusal doesn’t equal probable cause.
It wouldn’t make sense if it were. Lie detector tests are not legally considered accurate, so legally an innocent person has every reason to refuse to take one.
Plus, it doesn’t work the other way. Innocent people who “prove” their innocence with a lie detector test are treated no differently than those who never took a lie detector test.
Esthier on January 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Not sure I understand what you are saying? Did you read the article? Notice that the police didn’t actually believe that there was a difference between blacks and whites. The researcher had to prove that he could see the difference.
Apparently not profiling of races…because as the quote I provided in my first comment shows scientists did not believe it.
PierreLegrand on January 2, 2008 at 1:12 PM
It’s not so much that they didn’t believe the differences existed as they didn’t believe we could detect them yet. Anyone with a basic understanding of DNA (sorry OJ jury) can deduce that there is not merely a difference between blacks/whites/asians/blondes/brunettes ad infinitum, but between every single individual. If some things are in common, there has to be a common thread, which means that at some point the analysis has to be good enough to figure it out. The question is, when. It turned out that 2003 was the year someone figured out which genes governed “race” (more likely pigmentation level and a statistical analysis of which part of the world typically contained a certain active gene). That some fool in the court system doesn’t want this technology because it upsets his “it’s a small world” mentality is truly sad.
After all, I thought we were supposed to celebrate diversity!
Militant Bibliophile on January 2, 2008 at 1:32 PM
PC trumps science. It’s Stalin’s Lysenkoism
all over again.
petefrt on January 2, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Zing!
saint kansas on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Sounds very much a case of ‘inconvenient science’ and not acceptable to the religion [political correctness].
It will have to be stamped out just like DDT…
Lamonte Thomas on January 2, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I totally get your point… but I have to say, we WERE talking about racial profiling… when the race was “white”:
Can you imagine if those 1,000 were black? Can you imagine the marches that the shakedown brothas Jackson and Sharpton would have held? Can you imagine the riots in cities across the country. But 1,000 white guys give samples and nobody screams “racial profiling!!!” Because in reality, it’s criminal profiling, based on circumstantial evidence that they had before the science was in. Just like we need to scrutinize middle eastern looking and clearly Muslim passengers at the airports, based on the criminal profile of jihadists. Doesn’t mean we pretend there aren’t Adam Gadahns out there, but it’s irresponsible to not profile criminals.
RightWinged on January 2, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Color me shocked…he doesn’t “like” something. Awwww the poor sensitive baby.
Does this man not understand that we do not all bleed the same blood? Has he not heard of BLOOD TYPE?
Montana on January 2, 2008 at 2:21 PM
This is just another example of PC gone wild. In Baltimore a couple of years back a deputy police chief instructed his officers that they had to investigate every single male that they found in a specific area despite numberous eye witnesses describing the offender as, you guessed it, black. On the evening news, it is unusual to hear a suspect’s skin color, but we will hear his height and weight. Absolutely ridiculous. Next we’ll be forced to interrogate women for rape!
(Yeah, yeah, I saw that SVU episode, too. Comment still stands.)
Longhorn Six on January 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The earth is FLAT!
The earth IS the center of the Universe!
Man CANNOT fly!
MAN is causing global warming!
yeah, whatever….
Wind Rider on January 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM
if the DNA don’t fit,
you must aquit
jgapinoy on January 2, 2008 at 8:58 PM
What if the DNA could show the suspect was blond with blue eyes…or red hair and freckles….as long as it doesn’t show you have chocolate brown skin and curly brown hair? sheesh!
jjjen on January 3, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I suppose they could present this as a valuable tool that will help prevent black people from being wrongly suspected by the police for crimes committed by whites.
Then it becomes positive, anti-discrimination tool rather than a racial profiling tool.
Would that work with these morons?
uptight on January 3, 2008 at 2:38 AM
I sense a compromise. The PC crowd will allow a DNA test to determine race, but the NPC crowd must allow embryonic stem cell research.
hadsil on January 3, 2008 at 3:10 AM