Now, we've got a bit over but I hadn't seen people lining up for public comment but I will ask for, open this up for public comment. Please if you would state your name and affiliation.

MR. DERIENZO: Sure. My name is Paul Derienzo. I'm a writer with In These Times magazine and with Pacifica Radio News. And I can't pass up a public comment and since no one else here I figured I would take the opportunity.

After listening today and considering some of the things I've heard about DNA and how little really the public knows or understands the breakthroughs in this technology, what is being done, does your group consider at all how it is going to not just educate the police enforcement and law enforcement agencies and people in the state legislatures but the everyday people out there what DNA means for them and the new DNA technology means for them and how it's going to change their lives in the future and if there's any plans to deal with educating the people at large.

For example, most people don't know about the situation in England and the tremendous gap there must be between what people in England would accept and what people in the United States would accept. Thank you. I just put that to all of you and see, ask that question in general. Thank you.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Go ahead. Jeffrey?

COMMISSIONER THOMA: Just at the local level, I talk to high schools in my own county. And it's one of the most interesting topics to bring up to students, is they're very interested to see what the future holds in this area. It's been an interesting topic of discussion. But I don't think anything formally is being done and I, I do think that that would probably be a good idea.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: I think by nature of the Commission itself, we've gone a rather far distance in that regard. Every meeting that we've had has, just about every meeting we have had has been followed by probably a front page article in USA Today. The number of times that either the Commission's work has generated a newspaper article somewhere or an Internet article has been amazing to me.

And I think that you would find the same circumstance tomorrow. As I understand, USA Today is going to run something tomorrow on the publications that we're putting out there. And every time that happens, you get a broader impact and you get more people understanding the impact that the forensic application of DNA has.

The other thing that we're doing is we put every transcript from our meetings on the Internet. They remain on there, will remain on there for the life of the Commission. And I think we will even expand some of the other things that go on there, including the recommendations, et cetera. The publications themselves will also be available on the Internet.

These, both the postconviction and the pamphlet will be on the Internet in electronic version for download for whoever wants it. So, it is hoped that the Commission itself has that function, that it does in fact serve the function of educating the general public also.

COMMISSIONER CROW: Chris, may I make the suggestion that these minutes be destroyed after 50 years?

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: Well, just, I hope it's not destroyed too quickly because I want to put on the record that on February 15th of next year, we have a book coming out, being published by Doubleday called Actual Innocence, which discusses not only the DNA exonerations but in one chapter it discusses the DNA databanks.

And the one point that you should focus on and I heard it in your comments as being a little off, what's remarkable to me about this Commission is that in the two years we've been here there's a consensus on the issue that we need money for the things we're talking about today, typing nonsuspect cases and getting the databanks working and we don't want to take this money and put it into taking DNA from everybody at arrest. And even the FBI said that today.

Now, that is a judgment that comes from really understanding the technology. But if you go out into the world out there, the first thing Geraldo Rivera is going to ask you is, well, why do you oppose taking DNA from people at arrest? And it is not an understanding of what it really takes to get this system working. So, we have a lot of outreach to get across here.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: And if I could just follow-up on that.

COMMISSIONER SCHECK: You're going to buy my book, you're going to distribute it, is that the follow-up?

COMMISSIONER REINSTEIN: Can we get a free copy?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Signed, signed copies.

COMMISSIONER SANDERS: Autographed copies.

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: That really was a large part of the point of the Commission in the first place. If you look at how issues like arresting testing could have gone, and still may in some smaller jurisdictions, that the existence of the Commission I think and the open discussion on it and bringing these cases to light and the effect that we have had, I know we have had effects on different state legislatures and we're having an effect on the national legislature.

I think the Commission has really fulfilled that part of its purpose also, to deal with those big, broad policy issues in a very proactive way, in a way that reacts to the technology and an understanding of the technology rather than a misperception of the technology.

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Let me just make a comment.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Joe?

COMMISSIONER DAVIS: Reiterating a letter that I sent to Chris some time ago. I agree that the problems out there are so immense that just to go to give blanket endorsement to DNA on arrest, we just don't have the facilities and the money in this country to do it.

But on the other hand, should there be somewhere in the United States a jurisdiction that does have the money and does have the laboratory or support to do this, that we should not say they shouldn't.

I think they should be encouraged do it if they can and then look upon what they do as a demonstration project. In other words, they should, whatever they set up should be analyzed very carefully to see what the cost benefit of this is over time. And, in fact, my whole approach to everything is I don't agree, I don't like big, huge programs, I always like to see a demonstration project first, test it, see how it works and then if it does we can expand.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Well, our commentator touched on a very important point that we should continually keep in mind, I think, and we appreciate that. Thank you.

Any other comments? Hearing none and since the time is past for public comment, I will close the public comment. We will be in recess until tomorrow, same place, at 9 a.m. Right? Anything else they have to know?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: Anything else they have to know?

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Robin, Lisa?

DR. FORMAN: You can leave the materials here.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Pardon me?

DIRECTOR ASPLEN: They can leave the materials here.

CHIEF JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON: Oh, good. Thank you. All right. We are in recess.

(Conference adjourned for the day at 5 p.m.)

Previous	Contents	Next
Back to National Commission Main Page