Forensic DNA databases in European countries: is size linked to performance?

Life Sciences, Society and Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Santos, Filipe ^a   Machado, Helena ^a,c   Silva, Susana ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

^b University of Porto   (Portugal)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COIMBRA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Crime; Criminal law; DNA database; Europe; Forensic genetics; Proportionality; Pr m decision

Indexed keywords

EID: 84975745679     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21957819     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2195-7819-9-12     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Asplen C: The application of DNA technology in England and Wales. London. 2004. Accessed 10 April 2013 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/203971.pdf.
2. Asplen C: ENFSI survey on the DNA profile inclusion, removal and retention of member states’ forensic DNA database. 2012. Accessed 10 April 2013 http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/files/documents/enfsi_report_on_dna_legislation_in_europe_0.pdf.
3. Beauregard E, Bouchard M: Cleaning up your act: forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice 2010, 38: 1160–1166. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.004 doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.004
4. Bidasolo M, Victor Gómez M, Fernando Rodríguez O: ADN y proceso penal - Una proposta de reforma de la ley 10/2007, reguladora de las bases de datos policiales sobre identificadores obtenidos a partir del ADN. Barcelona. 2009. Accessed 10 April 2013 http://www20.gencat.cat/docs/Justicia/Documents/ARXIUS/SC_107809-cast.pdf.
5. Bieber FR: Turning base hits into earned runs: improving the effectiveness of forensic DNA data bank programs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2006, 34: 222–233. doi:10.1111/j.1748–720X.2006.00029.x doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00029.x
6. Briody M: The effects of DNA evidence on the criminal justice process. Ph.D. Thesis. Griffith University: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice; 2004.
7. Camp NV, Dierickx K: National forensic databases: social-ethical challenges & current practices in the EU. Edited by: van Camp N, Kris D. Leuven: European Ethical - Legal Papers 9; 2007.
8. Council for Responsible Genetics: National forensic DNA databases. 2011. Accessed 10 April 2013 http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/dnadata/fullreport.pdf.
9. Council of Europe: Recommendation No. R (92) 1. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers to Member States. 1992. Accessed 10 April 2013 https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1518265&SecMode=1&DocId=601410&Usage=2.
10. Cutter AM: To clear or to convict? The role of genomics in criminal justice. Genomics, Society and Policy 2006, 2: 1–15.
11. Dahl JY, Sætnan AR: “It all happened so slowly” – On controlling function creep in forensic DNA databases. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 2009, 37: 83–103. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2009.04.002 doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2009.04.002
12. Deleuze G: Postscript on the Societies of Control. October 1992, 59: 3–7.
13. Dunsmuir W, Tran C, Weatherburn D: Assessing the impact of mandatory DNA testing of prison inmates in NSW on clearance, charge and conviction rates for selected crime categories. Sidney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research; 2008.
14. ENFSI: ENFSI survey on DNA-databases in Europe December 2011. 2011. Accessed 12 April 2013 http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/files/documents/enfsi_survey_on_dna-databases_in_europe_december_2011_0.pdf.
15. ENFSI: DNA-database management review and recommendations. 2012. Accessed 12 April 2013 http://www.enfsi.eu/sites/default/files/documents/enfsi_document_on_dna-database_management_2012_0.pdf.
16. EU Council: Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. EU Council, Official Journal of the European Union, August (2008) L 210/1–L 210/11 2008a.
17. EU Council: Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. EU Council, Official Journal of the European Union, August (2008) L 210/12–L 210/72 2008b.
18. Human Genetics Commission: Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Balancing individual rights and the public interest in the governance and use of the National DNA Database. 2009. Accessed 25 April 2013 http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/nov/uk-dna-human-genetics-commission.pdf.
19. Kaye J: Police collection and access to DNA samples. Genomics, Society and Policy 2006, 2: 16–27.
20. Kazemian L, Pease K, Farrington DP: DNA retention policies: the potential contribution of criminal career research. Eur J Criminol 2010, 8: 48–64. doi:10.1177/1477370810373731 doi:10.1177/1477370810373731
21. Leary D, Pease K: DNA and the active criminal population. Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 2003, 5: 7–12. 10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140135 10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140135
22. Ludwig A, Fraser J: Effective use of forensic science in volume crime investigations: Identifying recurring themes in the literature. Sci Justice 2013. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.09.006 doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.09.006
23. Lynch M, McNally R: Forensic DNA databases: the co-production of law and surveillance technology. In Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping the new genomics era. Edited by: Atkinson P, Glasner P, Lock M. London: Routledge; 2009:283–301.
24. Martin PD, Schmitter H, Schneider PM: A brief history of the formation of DNA databases in forensic science within Europe. Forensic Sci Int 2001, 119: 225–231.
25. McCartney C: The DNA expansion programme and criminal investigation. Br J Criminol 2006, 46: 175–192. doi:10.1093/bjc/azi094 doi:10.1093/bjc/azi094
26. McCartney C: Of weighty reasons and indiscriminate blankets: the retention of DNA for forensic purposes. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 2012, 51: 245–260. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2311.2012.00717.x doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2012.00717.x
27. McCartney C, Wilson T, Williams R: Transnational exchange of forensic DNA: viability, legitimacy, and acceptability. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 2011, 17: 305–322. doi:10.1007/s10610–011–9154-y doi:10.1007/s10610-011-9154-y
28. Ministry of Justice: The Dutch DNA Testing (Convicted Persons) Act. 2007. Accessed 15 April 2013 http://tinyurl.com/9hodfkj.
29. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues. London. 2007. Accessed 18 April 2013 http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/The%20forensic%20use%20of%20bioinformation%20-%20ethical%20issues.pdf.
30. Plows A, Boddington P: Troubles with biocitizenship. Genomics, Society and Policy 2006, 2: 115–135.
31. Prainsack B, Kitzberger M: DNA behind bars: other ways of knowing forensic DNA technologies. Soc Stud Sci 2009, 39: 51–79. doi:10.1177/0306312708097289 doi:10.1177/0306312708097289
32. Prainsack B, Toom V: The Prüm regime, Situated dis/empowerment in transnational DNA profile exchange. Br J Criminol 2010, 50: 1117–1135. doi:10.1093/bjc/azq055 doi:10.1093/bjc/azq055
33. Prainsack B, Toom V: Performing the union: the Prüm Decision and the European dream. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 2013, 44: 71–79. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.009 doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.009
34. Roman JK, Reid SE, Jay R, Chalfin AJ, William A, Knight CR: The DNA field experiment: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of DNA in the investigation of high-volume crimes. Washington, D.C. 2008. Accessed November 2013 http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411697_dna_field_experiment.pdf.
35. Schneider PM: Expansion of the European Standard Set of DNA Database Loci — The Current Situation. 2009. Accessed 20 June 2013 http://worldwide.promega.com/~/media/files/resources/profiles%20in%20dna/1201/expansion%20of%20the%20european%20standard%20set.pdf?la=en. Accessed 20 June 2013
36. Schneider PM, Martin PD: Criminal DNA databases: the European situation. Forensic Sci Int 2001, 119: 232–238.
37. Schroeder D: DNA and homicide clearance: What’s really going on? The Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies 2007, 7: 279–298.
38. Scottish Government: Guidance on the retention and use of forensic data and samples, Edinburgh. 2011. Accessed 18 April 2013 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/347326/0115604.pdf.
39. Siegel LJ: Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; 2010.
40. Simoncelli T: Dangerous excursions: the case against expanding forensic DNA databases to innocent persons. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2006, 34: 390–397.
41. Taylor RB, Goldkamp JS, Doris Weiland R, Garcia M, Presley LA, Wyant BR: Revise policies mandating offender DNA collection. Criminology and Public Policy 2007, 6: 2301–2312.
42. Toom V: Forensic DNA databases in England and the Netherlands: governance, structure and performance compared. New Genetics and Society 2012, 31: 311–322. doi:10.1080/14636778.2012.687133 doi:10.1080/14636778.2012.687133
43. Tully Lois A: Examination of the use of forensic DNA typing from two perspectives. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Maryland: Human Genetics; 1998.
44. Walsh SJ, Buckleton JS, Ribaux O, Roux C, Raymond T: Comparing the growth and effectiveness of forensic DNA databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series I 2008, 1: 667–668. doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.11.011 doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2007.11.011
45. Walsh SJ, Curran J, Buckleton JS: Modeling forensic DNA database performance. J Forensic Sci 2010, 55: 1174–1183. doi:10.1111/j.1556–4029.2010.01426.x doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01426.x
46. Williams R: DNA databases and the forensic imaginary. In Genetic suspects: global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing. Edited by: Hindmarsh R, Prainsack B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:131–152.
47. Williams R, Paul J: Forensic DNA databasing: a European perspective. Durham. 2005. Accessed 18 April 2013 http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/sass/WilliamsandJohnsonInterimReport2005–1.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2013
48. Wilson DB, McClure D, Weisburd D: Does forensic DNA help to solve crime? The benefit of sophisticated answers to naive questions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 2010, 26: 458–469. doi:10.1177/1043986210377231 doi:10.1177/1043986210377231