Convicted by DNA?

"Look. Mr and Mrs. Johnson, your daughter was molested, and we need to get this scumbag back in prison."

Your partner, Lieutenant Ross Barton, a 25-year veteran of the department, stood in the hallway of the hospital, pleading with the parents of a nine-year-old girl to help prosecute a known sex offender. Ross is a no-nonsense criminal investigator with a reputation for getting this done. You were assigned to him six months ago to learn the ropes of investigation. The Crimes Against Persons Unit was a detail you have aspired to be part of since you joined the department three years ago. But this case, involving a little girl who was sexually molested by a convicted sex offender, was not one of the glory cases you had dreamed of handling. It was repulsive in nature, and it was difficult to communicate with the distraught parents. Although you could sympathize with the parents--after all, you have two young daughters of your own, one in kindergarten, the other in second grade--this didn't make your job any easier.

"Please, Lieutenant, look at it from our perspective. Our little girl is alive. Yes, she went through hell with this guy, but she's physically OK. We don't want to put her through the emotional trauma of having to testify against him. WE just want to go home and start some sort of healing process," The girl's father had responded to Ross.

The little girl had been abducted while riding her bicycle in her neighborhood. The perpetrator, Steven Andrews, apparently enticed the girl into his house with the promise of some ice cream and an introduction to his fictitious nine-year-old daughter. The girl was sexually molested but managed to run out of the house and report what happened to her parents, who notified police. The perpetrator, Andrews, was a registered sex offender who has engaged in this type of activity before. He is well known in the Crimes Against Persons Unit and has been watched carefully since his parole seven months ago.

After fruitlessly pleading with the parents, Ross walked down the hallway with you. "This guy's a dirtbag,"  he commented. "He did the same thing a couple of months ago to another little girl, and the parents didn't want to do anything about it, just like these jokers. Andrews digitally penetrates these kids so there's no semen. He's slick all right, but he's not getting away with it this time. That's it for him. He's going down!" Ross stated emphatically.

"But Ross, we have no physical evidence against this guy. The doctor and the forensic nurse both said that there was evidence of penetration but no semen, neither on nor in the girl. Without that little girl's testimony we have no case," you argued.

"Oh yeah, we have a case. They didn't look at the clothing, Ross responded. "The nurse gave us that little girl's clothing in that bag, so I'll take it to forensics and she what they can find. I'll bet they find what we need. I know how these perps work. They ejaculate on the victim's clothing, not on or in their victim. If they find semen--Andrew' DNA--on those clothes of hers, we've got a case even without her testimony."

* * *

?Seven months later, Ross looks back on the conviction of Steven Andrews. "Thank God for DNA," he says to you. "If it hadn't been for the forensics on this case, we would never have gotten this guy off the streets and back in prison where he belongs."

"I can't believe it either. What luck to find Andrew's semen on that little girl's clothing! Boy, you sure were right about him ejaculating on the clothes while he was digitally penetrating her," you respond.

Ross smiles and winks at you. "I'll let you in on a little trade secret, son. Always seep some physical evidence from perps like this from previous crimes. It comes in handy when you need evidence.

"What do you mean, Ross?" you ask.

"Well two years ago this Andrews guy did the same thing to a little girl over in Taylorsville Community. We busted him, and the little girl who got molested had semen all over her. We collected it and froze it in the lab until we could match it up with Andrews. That was his first conviction here. Forensics had some of that clothing evidence, and I procured some of it on this case and submitted it as the clothing of the little girl. Of course, the DNA matched Andrew's. So justice has been served," Ross commented with a satisfied smirk on his face."

?It's clear to you now what happened. Ross removed from the evidence room some old semen-covered garments from another case, and he submitted them to forensics as the little girl's clothing. He set Andrew's up and got him convicted. At first, you are sickened by the idea that Ross would manufacture evidence against a defendant. But you start to think about your own daughters and what you would have done if it had been one of them who were molested. Justice was served--wasn't it? And as a result, who knows how many little girls will now be protected from this monster? Still, as much as you try to justify actions, it leaves you with a sick feeling. What are you going to do?

From Michael Braswell, Larry Miller, and Joycelyn Pollock. Case Studies in Criminal Justice Ethics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Question: In answering the following questions, please consider the moral aspects of the case only (not whether it the action described adhere to any law enforcement policies of codes).

Was what Ross did, right or wrong? Based upon what do you take this position (What is the rationale for your position)?

?What is the morally right thing for you (Ross' partner) to do in this situation. Based upon what do you take this position (What is the rationale for your position)?