One controversial use of DNA databases created by law enforcement involves searching the database for people's whose DNA is close to that of an unknown sample, indicating that they might be close relatives of a perpetrator who is not in the database.
The notorious East Area Rapist case in California was cracked by a new twist on that strategy. Rather than law enforcement databases, the leads came from family members who voluntarily sent their DNA in to commercial testing organizations for genealogical purposes. These matches were only leads to identify a possible suspect. The suspect was actually nailed through DNA-bearing material he discarded. Sam Stanton has this story for the Sacramento Bee.
So far the suspect has only been charged with murders, not rapes. There is a statute of limitations problem. See this story by Ryan Lillis in the SacBee.
The notorious East Area Rapist case in California was cracked by a new twist on that strategy. Rather than law enforcement databases, the leads came from family members who voluntarily sent their DNA in to commercial testing organizations for genealogical purposes. These matches were only leads to identify a possible suspect. The suspect was actually nailed through DNA-bearing material he discarded. Sam Stanton has this story for the Sacramento Bee.
So far the suspect has only been charged with murders, not rapes. There is a statute of limitations problem. See this story by Ryan Lillis in the SacBee.
Blowing the dust off my 1983 California Penal Code Annotated, there was then no statute of limitations for murder, and there is not now for capital and life-imprisonment crimes, which of course include murder. (§ 799(a).) Interestingly, there is also no limitation for embezzlement of public funds.
The limitation for rape before 1982 was the general three year limit. In that year a six year limit was imposed for rape. (§ 800(b).) For rape by force (§ 261(a)(2)) there is now no limit. (§ 799(b)(1).)
Can an amendment to the statute of limitations be applied retroactively if the amendment is made after the earlier limit had run? No, that would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Art. I, § 10, cl. 1.) The U.S. Supreme Court so decided in Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
The surviving victims will, I'm afraid, not see the perp convicted or sentenced for the crimes against them, but they can see him convicted and sentenced so that he never sees the outside of the prison wall again, and they will be able to give their victim impact statements in the sentencing procedure.
The limitation for rape before 1982 was the general three year limit. In that year a six year limit was imposed for rape. (§ 800(b).) For rape by force (§ 261(a)(2)) there is now no limit. (§ 799(b)(1).)
Can an amendment to the statute of limitations be applied retroactively if the amendment is made after the earlier limit had run? No, that would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Art. I, § 10, cl. 1.) The U.S. Supreme Court so decided in Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).
The surviving victims will, I'm afraid, not see the perp convicted or sentenced for the crimes against them, but they can see him convicted and sentenced so that he never sees the outside of the prison wall again, and they will be able to give their victim impact statements in the sentencing procedure.
This case shows the error in forbidding a mandatory death sentence---can't we all agree that 12 murders should get someone a death sentence every single time?
In my opinion, premeditated murder on more than one occasion, proved by independent evidence, should be a mandatory death sentence.
There simply are no mitigating circumstances short of a defense to the crime (e.g., insanity) than can outweigh repeated premeditated murder. The chances of a person being wrongly convicted of two murders on independent evidence are infinitesimal.
Can't we all agree? Well, a majority of the Supreme Court did not agree in Sumner v. Shuman, and they engrafted their opinion onto the Constitution.