San Francisco Police Dept considers privatising DNA testing of evidence

[alp227]

As the budget deficit in that tax-and-spend liberal haven of San Francisco, California approaches nearly half a billion dollars, and the crime lab in the city police department is suffering from a scandal involving stolen drug evidence and an extensive backlog of homicide evidence (including one case where someone held his 2-year-old nephew hostage for nearly 3 days before getting killed by SWAT himself and it was discovered the man was questioned for murder previously), the SFPD is considering using a private company...that's right a PRIVATE COMPANY...to do its genetic testing of crime scene evidence. More at the San Francisco Chronicle article "DNA lab chief quits as SFPD considers outsourcing" by Jaxon Van Derbeken.

The current situation: "The drug lab is now permanently shut down, with evidence handled by other police labs, while DNA and firearms testing has continued at the building in Hunters Point." (and my opinion is that the War on Drugs=take the first four letters of a drug that's used in crack form but replace the O with an A)

The reason why SFPD wants to outsource: "...a city controller's report suggested that it would be more cost-effective to shut down the lab entirely and send out all testing to outside labs."

The delayed case contributing to the police department's woes:

Recently, a delay in testing the DNA in an April homicide in Noe Valley came back to haunt the department when the suspected killer, Anthony Alvarez, took a toddler hostage in Sacramento. Alvarez was killed by deputies who freed the child.

Before the Sacramento incident, San Francisco police had not yet identified Alvarez as their suspect in the Noe Valley case. But Alvarez had told a family member about details of the April 8 killing of Charles McAleer-Bonilla that only the killer would know, police say.

A week after the killing, Alvarez skipped out on a San Francisco behavioral health court program and was soon tied to three bank robberies and an incident in which he shot at a Concord police officer. Alvarez was shot dead on June 11 during the standoff in Sacramento.

The drug lab did not start its testing of the DNA evidence found in the McAleer-Bonilla slaying until May 18 and did not produce a profile until June 9, the same day the three-day hostage crisis began in Sacramento, officials say.

On June 13, the DNA got a hit on the state's database, but authorities have yet to confirm that the DNA belonged to Alvarez. The Sacramento sheriff blamed Alvarez, and not the lab, for what happened.

My opinion: I'm sort of skeptical of governments using free enterprise just to save some cash. Yes, of course any government that is short on money should cut spending and try to raise revenue to balance the books.

But think about the bad influence of corporations on America. In California, two big-time corporate leaders are running for public office...former eBay CEO Meg Whitman for Governor and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina for US Senate. Both candidates have spent non-stop to win the people's vote, but in an era of mass unemployment and unfunded public schools, would the public really accept two uber-wealthy candidates to use the invisible hand of capitalism to save California?

And then we have the private security firm Blackwater/Xe in Iraq that's been killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Diebold/Premier Election Solutions, whose board of directors consisted of a bunch of Republicans, operated screwy voting machines that possibly altered voting results and stole elections in favour of Republican candidates.

Private prisons enjoy the freedom of being able to be either too hard or too soft on inmates given the state doesn't really regulate them. A 2001 study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons found that private prisons had higher escape rates than state-run prisons. And when the state has incentive to profit off of incarceration, the state manipulates the law to incarcerate as many people as possible...in the case of drug policy the majority of prisoners are serving time for drug offences, and most of them are black/poor. (Even though rich/white people do drugs no more likely than poor/minority people, guess who usually gets away with it?)

Given all the trouble that privatisation has caused for governments, can you really trust a private company to help deliver proper justice? Or will the company screw around with evidence to win a false conviction in the name of profit?

[Swamp Rat]

1. kick