Search

Under EU Law, Member States are compelled to engage in reciprocal automated forensic DNA profile exchange within the so-called Prüm system. Presently, 25 operational EU Member States exchange DNA data within the Prüm system to combat terrorism and cross-border crime. This article discusses the perceived risks and benefits of the Prüm system on the basis of a set of 37 interviews conducted in 22 EU countries, with 47 professionals operating the system (the National Contact Points - NCPs). The perceived benefits relate to the intensification of tools for combating transnational criminality; development of standardisation and harmonisation of forensic DNA testing procedures; and reinforcement of professional cooperation. The perceived risks are associated to the possibility that individuals may be prosecuted on the basis of false positives; the lack of available data to measure the effectiveness of the Prüm system; and the different modus operandi of police forces and judicial authorities. Our results reveal that perspectives on the risks and benefits of the Prüm system significantly vary according to the type of work performed by the NCPs. Our data shows a more complex range of perceived benefits and risks than those suggested in previous studies about the Prüm system., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.)

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of collecting and storing DNA data for criminal identification purposes. The development of the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database has been accompanied by public controversies. Building on recent developments in Science and Technology Studies on public engagement, we elaborate on the concept of emergent and co-produced issue-publics. We explore which different types of issues affect and mobilize publics along the historical development of the National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database, and how publics take shape alongside the institutionalization of regulatory and governance solutions. We identify three related issue-publics: a 'biological citizen issue-public' concerned with human and civil rights regarding the collection of biological material; a 'watchdog issue-public' that emerges to identify the problems surrounding a lack of civic accountability; and a 'co-decision making issue-public', including the stakeholders who advise on decisions relating to the database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under EU Law, Member States are compelled to engage in reciprocal automated forensic DNA profile exchange for stepping up on cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. The ethical implications of this transnational DNA data exchange are paramount. Exploring what the concept of ethics means to forensic practitioners actively involved in transnational DNA data exchange allows discussing how ethics can be addressed as embedded in the sociality of science and in the way scientific work is legitimated. The narratives of forensic practitioners juxtapose the construction of fluid ethical boundary work between science and non-science with the dynamic management of controversies, both of which are seen as ways to lend legitimacy and objectivity to scientific work. Ethical boundary work involves diverse fluid forms: as a boundary between science/ethics, science/criminal justice system, and good and bad science. The management of controversies occurs in three interrelated ways. First, through a continuous process of reconstructing delegations of responsibility in dealing with uncertainty surrounding the reliability of DNA evidence. Second, threats to the protection of data are portrayed as being resolved by black-boxing privacy. Finally, controversies related to social accountability and transparency are negotiated through the lens of opening science to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public’s understanding of forensic DNA databases remains undertheorized and few empirical studies have been produced. This article aims to address this omission by exploring the answers to an open-ended question taken from an online questionnaire regarding the reasons for individuals’ voluntarily accepting or refusing to allow their DNA profile to be included in the Portuguese forensic DNA database. The analysis is undertaken from the perspective of biological citizenship and the simultaneous empowering and disempowering effects of surveillance. The results indicate a pragmatic ethical framework that is linked to the cultural and emotional elements of altruism, resistance, stigma, and social representations of what is beneficial or harmful to the individual and to society. These subjectivities are anchored in commonplace images and metaphors for genetics, DNA, and forensic science that circulate in the messages transmitted by the media which pervade everyday life; hierarchies of trust in science and the justice system; and moral categories associated with the individual self-judgment in relation to crime, surveillance, and social order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The creation and expansion of forensic DNA databases might involve potential threats to the protection of a range of human rights. At the same time, such databases have social benefits. Based on data collected through an online questionnaire applied to 628 individuals in Portugal, this paper aims to analyze the citizens’ willingness to donate voluntarily a sample for profiling and inclusion in the National Forensic DNA Database and the views underpinning such a decision. Nearly one-quarter of the respondents would indicate ‘no’, and this negative response increased significantly with age and education. The overriding willingness to accept the inclusion of the individual genetic profile indicates an acknowledgement of the investigative potential of forensic DNA technologies and a relegation of civil liberties and human rights to the background, owing to the perceived benefits of protecting both society and the individual from crime. This rationale is mostly expressed by the idea that all citizens should contribute to the expansion of the National Forensic DNA Database for reasons that range from the more abstract assumption that donating a sample for profiling would be helpful in fighting crime to the more concrete suggestion that everyone (criminals and non-criminals) should be in the database. The concerns with the risks of accepting the donation of a sample for genetic profiling and inclusion in the National Forensic DNA Database are mostly related to lack of control and insufficient or unclear regulations concerning safeguarding individuals’ data and supervising the access and uses of genetic data. By providing an empirically-grounded understanding of the attitudes regarding willingness to donate voluntary a sample for profiling and inclusion in a National Forensic DNA Database, this study also considers the citizens’ perceived benefits and risks of operating forensic DNA databases. These collective views might be useful for the formation of international common ethical standards for the development and governance of DNA databases in a framework in which the citizens’ perspectives are taken into consideration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The so-called Prüm system made mandatory for all EU Member States to join the pan-European network for the exchange of fingerprints, DNA profiles and motor vehicle information for stepping up on cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. Taking into consideration the number of DNA profiles archived in the national databases of the operational countries, more than 13 million DNA profiles can potentially be exchanged. Plans for "next-generation Prüm" that may soon be introduced aim to exchange additional forensic modalities, namely facial recognition data (FRD). This commentary highlights the ethical and social problems of merging DNA profiles of convicted persons, suspects and crime stains (targeting criminal identification) with DNA profiles from missing persons, relatives of missing persons, unidentified persons and unidentified human remains (oriented to civil identification). In a complementary manner, we also discuss the problematic amendments of the so-called "next-generation Prüm" that may soon be introduced that includes plans to exchange additional forensic modalities, namely facial recognition data (FRD). • The Prüm System transnational exchange of DNA data involves 25 EU Member- States. • More than 13 million DNA profiles can potentially be exchanged. • Genetic profiles from unidentified bodies related to civil identification are being exchanged within the Prüm system. • Future plans include exchange of facial recognition data. • Ethical debate is urgent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this paper we aim to discuss how Portuguese prisoners know and what they feel about surveillance mechanisms related to the inclusion and deletion of the DNA profiles of convicted criminals in the national forensic database. Through a set of interviews with individuals currently imprisoned we focus on the ways this group perceives forensic DNA technologies. While the institutional and political discourses maintain that the restricted use and application of DNA profiles within the national forensic database protects individuals’ rights, the prisoners claim that police misuse of such technologies potentially makes it difficult to escape from surveillance and acts as a mean of reinforcing the stigma of delinquency. The prisoners also argue that additional intensive and extensive use of surveillance devices might be more protective of their own individual rights and might possibly increase potential for exoneration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Two cases of missing children in Portugal (Joana and Maddie) have recently highlighted the dilemmas and contingencies associated with the technology of “genetic fingerprinting” for forensic purposes in the context of criminal investigations. The purpose of this article is to analyze the popular press’s discourses and representations around forensic genetics in the context of those two highly mediatized criminal investigation cases. The symbolical construction and representation of forensic genetics by the media presents a form of public exposure to beliefs on forensic genetics’ characteristics and potential. These are blended with popular cultural contexts that are constructed with reference to images of a super-science which may carry consequences in the public understanding of forensic science. The media coverage of both cases and their actual disclosure resembles the patterns of a CSI effect, insofar as real science’s capabilities and limitations are placed against fictionalized representations of forensic science. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]