Herman Atkins Case Study

As we learned this week, DNA databases are used by various governmental agencies for several different purposes. We all have seen new magazine shows such as, 20/20 or Dateline, that show the collection of DNA samples from suspects in a case that is compared to those collected at the scene of the crime. But what happens when the sample is an incomplete match, compromised, or contaminated? The answer is the wrongful conviction of innocent citizens. The case that I have decided to highlight, is the wrongful conviction of Herman Atkins. In 1986, Atkins was convicted of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of oral copulation, and robbery in the state of California. It was alleged that Herman entered a shoe store, and raped, beat, and robbed a

female clerk. Although the clerk positively identified Mr.

Atkins, only after a coworker showed her a wanted flyer for him, on an unrelated charge her identification of Atkins was considered a positive ID. Later, the victim identified Atkins as a patron of the store earlier on the day of the crime. However, the perpetrator did leave DNA at the scene, once he ejaculated he left semen on the sweater of the victim providing law enforcement a sample to compare against Mr. Atkins’ DNA. This valuable piece of evidence left at the scene revealed a perpetrator with Type A blood and PGM 2+1+, that was consistent with the blood type of Mr. Atkin (Innocence project, 2015). Herman Atkins was convicted and sentenced to forty- five years and eight months in the California State Department of Corrections. The Innocence Project decided to take his case, and in February of 2000, the same DNA evidence used to convict Atkins also exonerated him, inconsistencies were found in the samples leading to his release from

prison.
It is the belief by some that “DNA fingerprinting” has led to a decrease in ‘true’ police work (investigating multiple options), and a heavy reliance on DNA however incomplete to convict crimes.

It is also thought that DNA fingerprinting and databases lead to racial disparities within the criminal justice system, since the majority of incarcerated persons are of African American or Latino decent (Chow-White). The ethical argument is that while DNA sample collections are legal and undoubtedly helpful in obtaining convictions, it on the other hand supports and in some ways promote racial disparities (Chow- White). At the urging of multiple anti-watchdog groups, legislation for changes in polices and institutional practices must be implemented to address these disparities and protect individuals within these demographics. The suggestion of encrypted digital codes that limit the information revealed by these databases to individuals are also being evaluated

(Chow).