If you want to have your say, read how…

May 19th, 2013

You have until the 30th May 2013 to stand up and be counted in South Africa’s fight against crime.

Every day innocent people needlessly become victims of violent crimes in our country. Most of these are committed by repeat offenders. By sending a strong message to the South African Government to pass legislation that enables law enforcers to collect DNA from arrestees and convicted offenders we can catch criminals sooner. That means you can help prevent most of these crimes, save more lives, and provide more protection to the innocent. Sign up today to show that you believe that the proposed DNA legislation, officially known as The Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill B09-2013 currently before Parliament should be made law. If passed, this law will revolutionise crime scene investigation in South Africa in line with best international practice and increase the number of convictions secured.

Stand up and be counted!

Stand up and be counted!

The Portfolio Committee on Police has invited all interested people to submit written comments on the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill by no later than the 30 May 2013. You can also sign our petition by clicking on the following link Sign our petition here and show your support to Pass the DNA Legislation!

If you believe that our Government should pass this vitally important legislation, then please show your support and  draft a submission to Parliament. Written submissions addressed to the Portfolio Committee on Police, should be directed to the Committee Secretary, Babalwa Mbengo, and posted to P. O. Box 15, Cape Town 8000, or e-mailed to bmbengo@parliament.gov.za or faxed to 086 665 5444.  You must indicate your interest in making a verbal presentation to the Committee in your submission, should you wish to do so.

You may wish to include in your submission some or all of the following points:

As a concerned South African citizen, I welcome the introduction of the Criminal Law (Forensics Procedures) Bill into Parliament and support its promulgation into law as a matter of extreme urgency to help fight crime in our country. The passing of this Bill, in its current form,  into law will help identify serial offenders at an early stage of the investigation as well as link perpetrators to their crimes through an objective and reliable science. It will also ensure that the innocent are exonerated.

  • The existing DNA Database in South Africa which has through default, evolved under the governance of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977, is a wholly inadequate tool for regulating the use and retention of DNA profiles on a National DNA Database. The new Bill ensures that the future of the current DNA Database is expanded and managed in a regulated and appropriate manner.
  • I endorse the provision that makes it mandatory to take DNA samples from suspects at the time of arrest and believe that it should extend to all arrestees and not just those arrested for schedule one offences.
  • It is imperative to ensure that all convicted offenders DNA samples are taken retrospectively and before their release from prison.
  • I further support the provision that trained Police Officers be allowed to take non intimate DNA samples from arrestees and convicted offenders. The collection of a non-intimate DNA sample by a specially trained police officer from an arrestee or convicted offender ensures that a sample is quickly and easily uplifted. The “invasiveness” of the methods of obtaining DNA samples (rubbing a swab around the person’s mouth, or obtaining a drop or two of blood from a pin-prick to a finger), are no different to having a breathalyser taken on suspicion of drunken driving.
  • The DNA Bill ensures the creation of a DNA database in South Africa that will function effectively not only as a tool for gathering inculpatory evidence, but also for gathering exculpatory evidence, to appropriately eliminate suspects and so safeguard against wrongful convictions or other miscarriages of justice.
  • The way in which the DNA profiles are stored on the DNA Database, namely by using markers from the non coded regions of a person’s DNA ensures that no genetic disposition or other distinguishing feature may be read from that profile other than gender. The retention of the profile, in that form, is the same as a fingerprint, and therefore its retention does not impact on the privacy of the individual in any way whatsoever.
  • The creation of a Reference Index, Crime Scene Index and Convicted Offender Index ensures that DNA profiles are appropriately stored and managed.
  • The DNA Bill adequately retains an appropriate balance between the rights of individuals and the respect for privacy. The new Bill has been carefully drafted to ensure that  the DNA Database is maximized to its full potential in combating and preventing crime in South Africa, whilst still ensuring that it has minimal impact on the civil rights of its citizens.
  • The Bill importantly calls for an Oversight Committee to be formed which will monitor the implementation of this legislation. The Oversight Committee will monitor the collection and storage of samples, the performance of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the National Forensic DNA Database. The Board will ensure compliance with ethical and privacy issues and ensure minimum quality standards are set and adhered to. Over time the Oversight Committee will establish the effectiveness of the legislation in the fight against crime and review the Bill in order that any necessary changes are made to maximise the efficiency of the use of the Database as a criminal intelligence tool.
  • The  DNA Bill shows that the Government has explicitly tackled the scourge of crime in South Africa by demonstrating that if there is any perceived intrusion on an individual through the retention of their DNA profile, it is outweighed by a demonstrated and long awaited  interest in protecting its citizens against serious and violent and crimes.
  • In order to ensure the successful implementation of this legislation, I believe that First-on-crime scene police investigators, as well as key personnel involved in crime scenes, including the private security and emergency services sector, must be trained in how to identify, collect and preserve DNA evidence at crime scenes, so that critical evidence can be collected and fewer cases will be at risk of being jeopardised due to the mishandling of evidence. In addition, officers of the courts must be educated in how DNA evidence technology works to corroborate a case against a suspect or exonerate a suspect quickly, thereby decreasing delays in court.
  • The public interest which is served by the new Bill, is important, especially in cases of violent crime where DNA matching has been proven  to be invaluable in matching a suspect to a crime scene. I believe the Bill, when passed,  will have a profound impact on the criminal justice system in South Africa.

Have your Say!

May 17th, 2013

INVITATIONS FOR PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THE DNA BILL HAVE BEEN CALLED

THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON POLICE INVITES INTERESTED PEOPLE AND STAKEHOLDERS TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE CRIMINAL LAW (FORENSIC PROCEDURES) AMENDMENT BILL ['THE DNA BILL']. ***

Written submissions addressed to the Portfolio Committee on Police, should be directed to the Committee Secretary, Babalwa Mbengo, and posted to P. O. Box 15, Cape Town 8000, or e-mailed to bmbengo@parliament.gov.za or faxed to 086 665 5444. Kindly indicate your interest in making a verbal presentation to the Committee.

The closing date for submissions is 12:00 on Friday, 31 May 2013.

***The DNA Project has issued guidelines in respect of how to draft a submission to Parliament for those who wish to do so. Click here should you wish to read these guidelines.


You can also sign our petition here and show your support to Pass the DNA Legislation!

Parliament Buildings, Cape Town

Parliament Buildings, Cape Town


The Bill aims to amend the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, so as to provide for the taking of specific bodily samples from certain categories of persons, for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis; to provide for the conditions under which the samples or forensic DNA profiles derived from the samples may be retained, or the periods within which they may be destroyed; to further regulate proof of certain facts by affidavit or certificate; to amend the South African Police Service Act, 1995, to establish and regulate the administration and maintenance of the National Forensic DNA Database of South Africa; to amend the Firearms Control Act, 2000, so as to further regulate the powers in respect of bodily samples for investigation purposes, and to amend the Explosives Act, 2003, so as to further regulate the power in respect of bodily samples for investigation purpose; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

To download a copy of the DNA Bill click on the following link DNA BILL B09-2013.9 MAY 2013

Additional information and copies of the Bill may be obtained from the Committee Secretary who may be reached via email or on tel. 021 403 3741, or cell. 072 327 1993.
This notice has been issued by Ms A. Van Wyk, MP, Acting Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Police.

TO READ THE OFFICIAL NOTICE IN AFRIKAANS CLICK HERE AFRIKAANS

TO READ THE OFFICIAL NOTICE IN ZULU CLICK HERE ZULU

TO READ THE OFFICIAL NOTICE IN ENGLISH CLICK HERE ENGLISH

Serial rapist identified through his DNA in South Africa

May 15th, 2013

We are often asked whether we have any success stories using DNA in South Africa – well here is a great success story about using the power of DNA to identify serial offenders: a man has been linked to seven rape cases committed over a 5 year period, through his DNA. The rapes were committed between 2008 and 2012 in the greater Durban and KwaDukuza areas.
The 34-year-old man is due to appear in the Durban Magistrate’s Court soon.  We will be sure to follow this case in the hope that the linking of his DNA to each case will secure a conviction.  http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Suspect-linked-to-rapes-through-DNA-20130514

The DNA Bill is official: B09-2013

May 9th, 2013

The DNA Bill is official: click on the links below to read the official DNA Bill which has been introduced into Parliament for review. DNA BILL B09-2013.9 MAY 2013

We expect calls for public submissions to be advertised Within the next few weeks, so please watch this space to ensure that you don’t miss out on the chance of sending in your written submission to Parliament in support of the Bill. Details will be published on this website, facebook and twitter and as soon as we are given same.

Bill 09 – Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill

DNA Project @HouwHoek 4-5 May 2013

May 6th, 2013

Well done to our amazing DNA Project Team who rode the 2 day, 100km HouwHoek Mountain Bike Ride this weekend.

A huge Thank You also goes out to the organisers of the event for helping us create such great awareness of The DNA Project and our cause over the course of the weekend. Click here to see more photos of The DNA Project Team @HouwHoek

Pay it forward

May 2nd, 2013

The below article came across my desk this morning – it resonated with me as I had a similar discussion at lunch yesterday – someone criticised the entire police force due to the actions of one officer . I found myself defending our SAPS as I have met so many good ‘cops’ that don’t get the recognition they deserve due to the bad behaviour of the ones that make it to the headlines. We are all guilty of often falling into the trap of painting everyone with the same brush – after reading this article, perhaps take some time to think of the good ‘cops’ out there, who do great work, and who deserve some recognition for that from us all every now and again.

Vanessa

This article, written by Justin Foxton,  first appeared in The Mercury on Monday 29th April 2013

Of all the many things that America does well; democracy, hamburgers, bottomless soda and happy endings – it does overkill best of all.
The response to the Boston Marathon bombings – a dreadful and deplorable act of terrorism no doubt – was like something out of a Hollywood action flick starring Chuck Norris or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Boston – a city with a population of over 600 thousand people and a land area of more than 125 square kilometres – was locked down until an all out manhunt saw the capture of an injured 19 year old Chechen suspect as he cowered in a bloodied boat in someone’s back garden.

After the capture of this obviously misguided youth, hundreds of residents lined the streets to cheer law enforcement officers. They apparently broke into chants of “USA USA USA” and a boom box belted out Neil Diamond’s “Sweet Caroline” as US flags were raised aloft by ecstatic patriots. Relief and overkill bubbled over.

But in spite of the over-the-top American-ness of all this, there are lessons to be learnt from how the Yanks do life. Firstly, don’t you wish that we cared enough about human life here in South Africa to even consider locking down an entire city – or even suburb – when three people got killed? We can suffer over 150 brutal criminal attacks on residents of the Upper Highway area of Kwa-Zulu Natal in one month and no one talks about locking the place down. What would that even look like I wonder?

We can also draw lessons from America’s understanding of the value of celebration. When the police and the FBI caught the baddie, the public took to the streets and honoured the men and women in uniform who had worked tirelessly to catch their man. Not us. When our cops embark on exhausting and dangerous manhunts – and catch the bad guys as they often do – we don’t so much as drop KFC and a Coke at the local police station let alone take to the streets and wave South African flags around hysterically. We are quick to berate our police for being fat, lazy and incompetent but do we ever bother to honour them when great work is done?

Human beings thrive on affirmation. How can we expect our police to rise to the enormous challenges presented by crime in South Africa when all we keep reiterating is that they are overweight, useless and corrupt? What about the hard working ones? What about the honest ones? What about the ones who give their lives to protect us and our families but who still die with our scorn heaped on their heads? Do these people not deserve our thanks? Or do we just say that our taxes pay their salaries so why should we bother to thank them?

We can learn from those crazy Americans and apply the lessons to other arenas in which the dominant discourse is of ineptitude and laziness….

Our discourse is so dominated by the negative that we often fail to see the successes that are going on before our very eyes – even in areas like policing… Without creating room for celebration of the good, human beings inevitably drown in a sea of bad.

And this is what we can do to inspire an awakening of great service in our country; become people who draw the best out of one another by thanking, honouring and celebrating rather than constantly complaining and critisising.

Justin Foxton is founder of The Peace Agency.

Notice of Intention to Introduce the DNA Bill in the National Assembly

April 30th, 2013

Following Cabinet’s approval earlier this month of the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Bill, an explanatory summary of the proposed new statute was gazetted on Friday  26 April 2013 (General Notice 435 of Government Gazette 36415) in anticipation of its introduction in Parliament.

According to the summary, the Bill seeks to provide for the ‘the taking of specified bodily samples’ for forensic purposes, their retention and destruction, as well as for the establishment, administration and maintenance of a national forensic DNA database. With this in mind, it proposes amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 51/1977, South African Police Service Act 68/1995, Firearms Control Act 60/2000 and Explosives Act 15/2003.

We note however that the Bill has yet to be published on either of the websites mentioned in the Gazette.

To read the Government Gazette Notice click on the following link: GG NOTICE 26 APRIL 2013

A Time to Shine

April 24th, 2013

What makes an awareness campaign successful? Not being a creative myself, I have no idea what formula one would use to determine this. As a layman in this arena, I simply rely on feedback. And our Cape Town Station ‘Never Disturb a Crime Scene’ Ad, has received more than its share of feedback over the last few months – in fact it has positively shined through. So many people have seen our ad and commended us on  a great idea with such a clear message. But these accolades do not belong to us and there are so many people we need to thank for this:

Thanks to FoxP2 for conceiving this unbelievable idea. They are a team of creative geniuses who managed to pull this off and they deserve all the credit for a great activation.

Thanks to the incredible  Change a Life Trust for helping us fund this project. Together you are helping us  not only change, but save lives.

Thanks to etv for giving us 820 airtime slots over the last few months at a value of over R6 000 000 at no cost to ourselves. Thanks also goes to DSTV for giving us 250 airtime slots at a value of over R3 300 000 at no cost to ourselves. They both believed in our work and were willing to be a part of a collective solution to try and educate the South African public as to the importance of preserving evidence on a crime scene in order to help secure convictions. Without their generous platforms, we would not have been able to disseminate this critical message.

Thanks to Amplicon Public Relations, part of the FoxP2 Group, for helping us disseminate the ad through all forms of social media and congratulations goes out to them too as they recently won Bronze in the “PR on a shoestring” category with their DNA Project “Station Activation” entry at the 2013 PRISM Awards.

Bronze Prism Award goes to The DNA Project Ad

Bronze Prism Award goes to The DNA Project Ad

And last but not least, thanks to you, the public, for watching our ad. Everyone who has seen our ad has given us such positive feedback: they tell us that they just ‘GET IT!’ and I think that is the key to a successful awareness campaign.

NEVER DISTURB A CRIME SCENE.

DNA EVIDENCE CONVICTS.

Vanessa Lynch

DNA Project, BACSA, CPF’s & SAPS collaborate for greater crime scene awareness

April 22nd, 2013

The DNA Project has been invited to be part of the capacity building pilot project for CPF’s, initiated by SAPS and BACSA.

Business Against Crime South Africa (BACSA) has leveraged the skills of the DNA PROJECT to run free, crime scene awareness training workshops for CPF’s in seven pilot stations in Gauteng as part of its joint collaboration with SAPS. The recent collaboration is part of a capacity building project for CPF’s and is one of many of the jointly agreed initiatives entered into between BACSA and SAPS.

A sample of our crime scene tape

A sample of our crime scene tape which is issued to CPF's to assist with crime scene protection

The initiatives stem from the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BACSA and SAPS and provides structure and accountability to the relationship. The initiatives, including CPF capacity building pilot project, have been conceptualised based on the information provided by SAPS on the core strategic risks facing the Police service.

The project’s footprint is national but for purposes of the pilot the following seven Gauteng police stations have been selected as sites:
• Alexandra;
• Bronkhorstspruit;
• Cullinan;
• Dube;
• Diepsloot;
• Midrand; and
• Norkem Park.

The insights and lessons learnt from the pilot phase will serve as a basis for the best practice model to be rolled out to other provinces.

The aim : To enhance community and police relations to improve on service delivery and a number of challenges have been identified. Key amongst these challenges is the limited understanding of the role and responsibilities of the CPF by CPF members. One other key deficiency identified is the need for skills development for the Community Police Forum executive members in the seven pilot stations.

CPF members will learn about different types of DNA evidence found on crime scenes

CPF members will learn about different types of DNA evidence found on crime scenes

To mitigate the two identified key challenges, SAPS Human Resources Division (HRD) has developed a training manual for CPF’s and three instalments of three days training workshops have been planned. The first one will be taking place from 26-28 April 2013. A skills audit of the CPF executive members in the seven stations has been compiled and submitted to SAPS HRD for the design of skills development and other capacity building interventions.

BACSA’s role in its long-standing working relationship with SAPS is to identify and leverage skills not resident within the SAPS environments from the private sector to support and expertise in alignment with SAPS objectives.

The DNA Project will form part of this three day training programme and will focus on providing CPF’s with a basic understanding of how DNA evidence is being used to assist in criminal investigations and why it is therefore vital not to enter or disturb a crime scene. Members of the CPF’s and sub structures are
in some cases the first people who arrive at a crime scene with potential DNA evidence. Without proper training and understanding of the value of the DNA

Never Disturb a Crime Scene

Never Disturb a Crime Scene

evidence, vital evidence is contaminated. The workshops consist of a presentation by a DNA project approved trainer (who is knowledgeable in the field of DNA profiling). A broadcast and distribution of a DNA awareness DVD is also compiled and produced by the DNA Project.

The training programme will kick off this weekend in Pretoria.

The mother of DNA Databases

April 17th, 2013

If we really cared about protecting the innocent, we’d collect samples from everyone—not just the convicted.

Forensic worker Rayo Del Carmen Ochoa examines DNA samples

This article was written by Eric Posner and first appeared on the 5 March 2013

Chicago, USA : Last Month (March 2013) the Supreme Court heard a debate about whether police should be able to swab the cheek of a person they have arrested, in order to obtain genetic information from him. The man arrested, Alonzo King, got in trouble for brandishing a shotgun at some people, but after analyzing his DNA sample, police discovered that his profile matched DNA evidence taken from a rape victim. King was subsequently convicted of the rape. And then the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the acquisition of the DNA sample was an unreasonable search that violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The case turns on the distinction between merely arrested people (who are presumptively innocent) and convicted people (who are presumptively guilty). If the police had taken the sample from King’s cheek after he had been convicted of a crime, he would clearly have had no constitutional claim. Earlier cases have established that convicted criminals have limited privacy rights and taking DNA samples from them doesn’t come close to violating them. But King’s DNA was taken when he’d been arrested and not yet convicted.

Maryland argues that arrestees also have limited privacy rights. The police must have probable cause to arrest someone, but once they do, they can search his person, photograph him, and fingerprint him. He can even be strip-searched. A person suspected of drunken driving can be required to take a Breathalyzer or jabbed with a syringe. Compared with these indignities, the intrusion in privacy from the cheek-swab is essentially nil. The procedure itself takes only a moment, and the portion of the DNA molecule that is analyzed can reveal nothing about the person other than whether he was present at a crime scene from which the matching DNA was taken. It does not reveal the identities of his parents, or ethnic heritage, or genetic disorders, or the structure of his soul.

King argues (as do the ACLU and two law professors writing in Slate, Brandon Garrett and Erin Murphy) that the government’s interest in the information generated by the cheek-swab is minimal. DNA information collected from crime scenes and convicted criminals account for nearly all the matches that help solve crimes. As Garrett and Murphy note, King had six prior convictions, and most people who are arrested have prior convictions, given the huge amount of recidivism among criminals, so you can get most of the information you need even if you are limited to taking DNA samples from convicted criminals. But Garrett and Murphy do not show that the additional information from expanding the net to arrestees is zero; and as more DNA samples become available for analysis, police will be able to solve more crimes.

The Fourth Amendment requires a balancing of the privacy interests of individuals and the criminal-justice interests of the states. Thus, this seems like a case in which you put a feather on each side of the scale, and it tips in neither direction. So each side gilds the feather with familiar exaggerations. King’s defenders warn that the state could demand DNA information from people who have been stopped for running stop signs or who have applied for drivers’ licenses. Maybe this information will then get out, or be used by the government to identify people with criminal dispositions and convict them before they commit crimes, like in Philip Dick’s story, The Minority Report. The state, on the other hand, paints a rosy picture of the future of DNA analysis, going perhaps beyond what is scientifically feasible.

A court must decide the case before it, not all future cases that may arise as a result of a rapidly changing technology. Whatever value DNA information may have for identifying embarrassing secrets or the propensity to future crime, the system before the court uses DNA for the purpose of matching criminals to crimes—and none other. And while government officials could conceivably break the law and sell DNA samples to insurance companies or telemarketers, or trumpet private information to the press, they can do that with all the other information they possess—from tax returns to health records. Laws deter this behavior. If we are to deprive the police of useful but dangerous tools merely because they could be misused, we should start by taking away their guns.

Indeed, the idea that the police would use DNA evidence of a person’s criminal propensity to lock her up before she commits crimes is farfetched at best. Scientists currently do not believe that a person’s DNA provides useful information as to whether he will commit a crime in the future—the intervening environmental factors, like where and how a child grows up, probably swamp genetic influences. And even if it did, it is no more plausible that society would allow police to lock up people with “bad” DNA than that it would allow police to lock up adults who exhibited aggressive personalities as children (according to this paper, a pretty good predictor of adult criminality). Genes or no, the rule is that you must commit a crime before being convicted of it.

King’s defenders make another argument. Under current law, when police arrest people, they can only search for weapons and evidence that might be destroyed—not for information that could be used to fish out new crimes. Thus, if you are arrested for drunken driving, the police can’t search your home in the hope of finding evidence of tax evasion or drug possession. At the Supreme Court argument Tuesday, Justice Kagan suggested that this rule means that police cannot cheek-swab people arrested for one crime in the hope that information about some other crime will be discovered. But police also can’t search people’s houses for evidence of different crimes after convicting them of drunken driving. The real justification for gathering DNA of convicts is that it gives police useful information without requiring a serious intrusion—that is why we draw the line at searching their houses. This logic suggests that arrestees should be required to submit to DNA tests—and indeed that the rest of us should as well.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 203,830 rapes took place in the United States in 2008. Most rapists are not caught and convicted. DNA testing provides a uniquely valuable approach to this difficult problem. With a minimal privacy intrusion, it can provide accurate evidence that leads to convictions. If we really care about rights, we should mandate DNA testing, and not only of arrestees, but of everyone. A universal DNA database would greatly increase the number of convictions—vindicating the rights of rape victims and protecting others from serial rapists. It would also, of course, help police solve other crimes in which criminals leave behind hair, blood, flakes of skin, and so on. Such a database would greatly reduce the incidence of false convictions, thus protecting the rights of innocent people who are wrongly accused. And a higher hit rate would cause police to spend more resources collecting DNA evidence at crime scenes, giving them more ammunition for solving cold cases—just because the higher payoff in terms of convictions would justify the higher costs.

Yet dinosaurs like the ACLU stand in the way of such sensible reforms, because of their customary focus on the rights of criminal suspects and defendants at the time of arrest and trial. The ACLU’s own DNA prevents it from seeing that superior investigative techniques will do more to protect innocent people than an extra right or two at the stage of arrest. The Supreme Court will likely disagree, and rightly so.