Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- About the contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introducing Genetic Suspects
- Section 1 Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing
- 2 Key issues in DNA profiling and databasing: implications for governance
- 3 Forensic utilization of voluntarily collected DNA samples: law enforcement versus human rights
- 4 Base assumptions? Racial aspects of US DNA forensics
- 5 Health and wealth, law and order: banking DNA against disease and crime
- 6 DNA profiling versus fingerprint evidence: more of the same?
- Section 2 National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues
- Section 3 Conclusions
- Index
- References
3 - Forensic utilization of voluntarily collected DNA samples: law enforcement versus human rights
from Section 1 - Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- About the contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introducing Genetic Suspects
- Section 1 Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing
- 2 Key issues in DNA profiling and databasing: implications for governance
- 3 Forensic utilization of voluntarily collected DNA samples: law enforcement versus human rights
- 4 Base assumptions? Racial aspects of US DNA forensics
- 5 Health and wealth, law and order: banking DNA against disease and crime
- 6 DNA profiling versus fingerprint evidence: more of the same?
- Section 2 National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues
- Section 3 Conclusions
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Forensic DNA profiling is now an indispensable tool used by law enforcement agencies worldwide. Since its introduction by Sir Alec Jeffries and colleagues (Gill et al. 1985), forensic DNA has caused a revolution in crime scene investigation, similar to that brought about by fingerprint identification capabilities a century ago (see Chapter 6). The annual number of cases solved by means of DNA profiling in the UK, for example, is now approaching the number of those solved with the use of fingerprints. Nevertheless, the DNA profiling ‘revolution’ would not have occurred without the emergence of computerised forensic databases. Among those databases that focus on individual characteristics, the automated fingerprint identification systems and DNA databases are most valuable for law enforcement authorities. They allow the generation of ‘cold hits’, namely the identification of a suspect without a classical criminal investigation. The combination of two parallel processes – scientific innovations in the field of molecular genetics and the emergence of computerised databases – underpins contemporary methodology of forensic investigation.
Scientifically, forensic DNA profiling is still considered a young technology. It is also a relatively complicated process, prone to contaminations and misinterpretations. Its probabilistic nature leaves much room for debates regarding interpretation (see also Chapters 2, 6 and 7). Other controversies connected to DNA profiling and databasing involve ethical and legislative issues. Privacy and human rights issues are weighed generally against the well-being of society, but no clear lines can be drawn as in many instances they are complementary (Etzioni 2004).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Genetic SuspectsGlobal Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing, pp. 40 - 62Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(2006). The Non-forensic Use of Biological Samples taken for Forensic Purposes: An International Perspective. Boston, MA: American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethicswww.aslme.org/dna_04/spec_reports/asplen_non_forensic.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2004). Science and technology of forensic DNA profiling: current use and future directions. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 23–62.Google Scholar
(2007). Response submitted to the consultation held by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Jan_Bikker (accessed 6 June 2009).
(1999). The UK NDNAD intelligence led DNA screens: a guide for senior investigating officers. Presented at the 1st Interpol DNA Users Conference, Lyon, 24–26 November www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/dna/conference/DNADbBurton.ppt (accessed 6 June 2009).
and (2004). Forensic genetics and ethical, legal and social implications beyond the clinic. Nature Genetics, 36, s8–s12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Strasbourg: Council of Europehttp://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG (accessed February 2010).Google Scholar
and (2000). The Retention and Subsequent Use of Suspect, Elimination and Victim DNA Samples or Records. [National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence Report.] Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
(2004). DNA tests and databases in criminal justice: individual rights and the common good. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 197–223.Google Scholar
(2004). Antoni Imiela: M25 Rapist Trapped by Crucial Forensic Evidence. Birmingham: Forsensic Science Servicehttp://213.52.171.242/forensic_t/inside/news/list_casefiles.php?case=23 (accessed 27 February 2010).Google Scholar
(2006). Should biological evidence or DNA be retained by forensic science laboratories after profiling? No, except under narrow legislatively stipulated conditions. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 375–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). Police dragnets for DNA tests draw criticism. NewYork Times, 4 January www.nytimes.com/2003/01/04/us/police-dragnets-for-dna-tests-draw-criticism.html (accessed 6 June 2009).
(2004). When privacy fails: invoking a property paradigm to mandate the destruction of DNA samples. Duke Law Journal, 54, 179–219.Google Scholar
(2009). Keeping the Right People on the DNA Database: Science and Public Protection. London: The Stationery Officewww.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/dna-consultation? (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2006). DNA database ‘should include all’. Telegraph, 24 October www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532210/DNA-database-should-include-all.html (accessed 6 June 2009).
and (2004). DNA and crime investigation: Scotland and the ‘UK national DNA database’. Scottish Journal of Criminal Justice Studies, 10: 71–84.Google ScholarPubMed
and (2004). DNA databases for law enforcement: the coverage question and the case for a population-wide database. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 247–284.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Use of the genomic matching technique to complement multiplex STR profiling reduces DNA profiling costs in high volume crimes and intelligence led screens, Forensic Science International, 151: 249–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2007). Forensic databases: benefits and ethical and social costs. British Medical Bulletin, 83, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2007). Liberty's Response to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Consultation. London: Libertywww.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy07/bioinformation-ethical-issues.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2004). Forensic DNA sampling and the England and Wales national DNA database: a sceptical approach. Critical Criminology, 12, 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Comments on the national DNA database (NDNAD). www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Professor_Ben_Mepham.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).
and (2003). Surveillance creep in the genetic age. In Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination, ed. , London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis, pp. 94–110.Google Scholar
(2007). The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethicswww.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/The_forensic_use_of_bioinformation_-_ethical_issues.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2008). Lords demand amendment to help the innocent get DNA off database. www.out-law.com/page-9564 (accessed 6 June 2009).
(2008). The forensic use of bioinformation: a review of responses to the Nuffield report, BioSocieties, 3: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Bill C-3, the DNA Identification Act. [Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.] Ottawa: Privacy Commissioner of Canadahttp://www.priv.gc.ca/speech/archive/02_05_a_980212_e.cfm (accessed 28 February 2010).Google Scholar
and (2007). Private fears in public places? ethical and regulatory concerns regarding human genomic databases. Personalized Medicine, 4, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2007). PHR2006 – Privacy Topics – Genetic Privacy. London: Privacy Internationalwww.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559080 (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2007). Big bio-brother is here: wanting, taking and keeping your DNA. In Proceedings of the British & Irish Law, Education and Technology Association Annual Conference, 16–17 April, Warwick, UK.Google Scholar
and (2006). The expanding use of DNA in law enforcement: What role for privacy?Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) (2001). Interpol Handbook on DNA Data Exchange and Practice. www.interpol.int/Public/Forensic/dna/HandbookPublic.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).
(2006). Dangerous excursions: the case against expanding forensic DNA databases to innocent persons. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2006). California's proposition 69: a dangerous precedent for criminal DNA databases. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2006). Let's make the DNA identification database as inclusive as possible. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Identification Measures Act Amendment, 19 June 2005 [Book of Laws, in Hebrew].
(2004). Privacy and forensic DNA data banks. In DNA and the Criminal Justice system: The Technology of Justice, ed. . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–195.Google Scholar
, , et al. (2006). Forensic mass screening using mtDNA. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 120, 372–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2008). National forensic DNA databases: current practices in the EU. European Ethical–Legal Papers, No. 9, Leuven: Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law.Google Scholar
and (2007). The expansion of forensic DNA databases and police sampling powers in the post 9/11-era: ethical considerations on genetic privacy. Ethical Perspectives, 14, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Report by the Office of the Victorian Privacy Commissioner: Inquiry into Forensic Sampling and DNA Databases, Melbourne: Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee.Google Scholar
(2004). Forensic Sampling and DNA Databases in Criminal Investigation. Melbourne: Victorian Parliament Law Reform Committee.Google Scholar
(2002). Databasing the DNA of Innocent People- Why it Offers Problems not Solutions [Press release, 13 September]. London: Liberty.Google Scholar
and (2005). Police DNA ‘sweeps’: A proposed model policy on police request for DNA samples. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska, Police Professionalism Initiativewww.unomaha.edu/criminaljustice/PDF/dnamodelpolicyfinal.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).Google Scholar
(2005). Legal perceptions of forensic DNA profiling part I: a review of the legal literature. Forensic Science International, 155, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2007). DNA profiling: invaluable police tool or infringement of civil liberties? Bioethics Forum, 15 October www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=648 (accessed 6 June 2009).
and (2006). Inclusiveness, effectiveness and intrusiveness: issues in the developing uses of DNA profiling in support of criminal investigations. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 234–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2004). Genetic Information and Crime Investigation: Social, Ethical and Public Policy Aspects of the Establishment, Expansion and Police Use of the National DNA Database. London: Welcome Trust.Google Scholar
Farhi v. State of Israel (2007). Serious Crime File 1084/06, Tel-Aviv District Court, April 26 (Hon. J. Ophir-Tom).
S and Marper v. the United Kingdom (2008). A summary of the judgment is available from http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=74847&sessionId=skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true&16785556 (accessed 6 June 2009).
State of Israel v. John Doe (2007). Serious Crime File 402/07, Haifa Juvenile District Court, November 15, (Hon. J. Berliner).
State of Israel v. John Doe (2008). Serious Crime File 206/08, Tel-Aviv District Court (still pending).
Yissacharov v. Chief Military Prosecutor (1998). CrimA 5121/98. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/98/210/051/n21/98051210.n21.pdf (accessed 6 June 2009).
- 3
- Cited by