Performing the Union: the Prüm Decision and the European dream

In 2005, seven European countries signed the so-called Prüm Treaty to increase transnational collaboration in combating international crime, terrorism and illegal immigration. Three years later, the Treaty was adopted into EU law. EU member countries are obliged to have systems in place to allow authorities of other member states access to nationally held data on DNA, fingerprints, and vehicles by August 2011. In this paper, we discuss the conditions of possibility for the Prüm network to emerge, and argue that rather than a linear story of technological and political convergence and harmonisation, the (hi)story of Prüm is heterogeneous and patchy. This is reflected also in the early stages of implementing the Prüm Decision which proves to be more difficult than it was hoped by the drivers of the Prüm process. In this sense, the Prüm network sits uncomfortably with success stories of forensic science (many of which served the goal of justifying the expansion of technological and surveillance systems). Instead of telling a story of heroic science, the story of Prüm articulates the European dream: One in which goods, services, and people live and travel freely and securely

Development of European standards for evaluative reporting in forensic science : The gap between intentions and perceptions

Criminal justice authorities of EU countries currently engage in dialogue and action to build a common area of justice and to help increase the mutual trust in judicial systems across Europe. This includes, for example, the strengthening of procedural safeguards for citizens in criminal proceedings by promoting principles such as equality of arms. Improving the smooth functioning of judicial processes is also pursued by works of expert working groups in the field of forensic science, such as the working parties under the auspices of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI). This network aims to share knowledge, exchange experiences and come to mutual agreements in matters concerning forensic science practice, among them the interpretation of results of forensic examinations. For example, through its Monopoly Programmes (financially supported by the European Commission), ENFSI has funded a series of projects that come under the general theme ‘Strengthening the Evaluation of Forensic Results across Europe’. Although these initiatives reflect a strong commitment to mutual understanding on general principles of forensic interpretation, the development of standards for evaluation and reporting, including roadmaps for implementation within the ENFSI community, are fraught with conceptual and practical hurdles. In particular, experience through consultations with forensic science practitioners shows that there is a considerable gap between the intentions of a harmonised view on principles of forensic interpretation and the way in which works towards such common understanding are perceived in the community. In this paper, we will review and discuss several recurrently raised concerns. We acknowledge practical constraints such as limited resources for training and education, but we shall also argue that addressing topics in forensic interpretation now is of vital importance because forensic science continues to be challenged by proactive participants in the legal process that tend to become more demanding and less forgiving

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

The political and financial investments in the implementation of forensic DNA databases and the ethical issues related to their use and expansion justify inquiries into their performance and general utility. The main function of a forensic DNA database is to produce matches between individuals and crime scene stains, which requires a constant input of individual profiles and crime scene stains. This is conditioned, among other factors, by the legislation, namely the criteria for inclusion of profiles and the periods of time and conditions for their retention and/or deletion. This article aims to provide an overview of the different legislative models for DNA databasing in Europe and ponder if wider inclusion criteria – and, consequently, database size – translates into more matches between profiles of crime scene stains and included individuals (performance ratio). The legislation governing forensic DNA databases in 22 countries in the European Union was analysed in order to propose a typology of two major groups of legislative criteria for inclusion/retention of profiles that can be classified as having either expansive effects or restrictive effects. We argue that expansive criteria for inclusion and retention of profiles do not necessarily translate into significant gains in output performance.MES -Ministry of Education and Science(SFRH/BPD/34143/2006)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Discussion on how to implement a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to avoid misunderstandings

In a recently published guideline for evaluative reporting in forensic science, the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) recommended the use of the likelihood ratio for the measurement of the value of forensic results. As a device to communicate the probative value of the results, the ENFSI guideline mentions the possibility to define and use a verbal scale, which should be unified within a forensic institution. This paper summarizes discussions held between scientists of our institution to develop and implement such a verbal scale. It intends to contribute to general discussions likely to be faced by any forensic institution that engages in continuous monitoring and improving of their evaluation and reporting format. We first present published arguments in favour of the use of such verbal qualifiers. We emphasize that verbal qualifiers do not replace the use of numbers to evaluate forensic findings, but are useful to communicate the probative value, since the weight of evidence in terms of likelihood ratio are still apprehended with difficulty by both the forensic scientists, especially in absence of hard data, and the recipient of information. We further present arguments that support the development of the verbal scale we propose. Recognising the limits of the use of such a verbal scale, we then discuss its disadvantages: it may lead to the spurious view according to which the value of the observations made in a given case is relative to other cases. Verbal qualifiers are also prone to misunderstandings and cannot be coherently combined with other evidence. We therefore recommend not using the verbal qualifier alone in a written statement. While scientists should only report on the probability of the findings - and not on the probability of the propositions, which are the duty of the Court - we suggest showing examples to let the recipient of information understand how the scientific evidence affects the probabilities of the propositions. To avoid misunderstandings, we also advise to mention in the statement what the results do not mean. Finally, we are of the opinion that if experts were able to coherently articulate numbers, and if recipients of information could properly handle such numbers, then verbal qualifiers could be abandoned completely. At that time, numerical expressions of probative value will be appropriately understood, as other numerical measures that most of us understand without the need of any further explanation, such as expressions for length or temperature

The transnational exchange of DNA data: Global standards and local practices

The creation of systems for the transnational exchange of information raises multiple issues related to the establishment of common infrastructures, protocols and regulation. The development and adaptation of standards is paramount in reaching operational levels of harmonization. This paper focuses on the case of a system for the improvement of crossborder cooperation in the European Union through the exchange information among databases of Member States. The Prüm Treaty and the subsequent Prüm Decisions have established a framework for the exchange of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data, and vehicle registration data, for the purpose of combating cross-border crime and terrorism. The historical specificity of DNA profiling data in terms of the development of international standards and the sensitivity it represents for data protection regulation constitutes it as a relevant object in order to analyze the challenges raised in the context of transnational cooperation. First, this paper provides an overview of the trajectory and characteristics of DNA as an object of standardization. Second, through interviews with local actors involved in the implementation and operationalization of the network for the exchange of DNA data, the global standards are compared with practices at the local level. The adoption of minimal standards allows flexibility and autonomy at a local level, thus allowing interoperability to exist in a scenario of national differentiation. However, a relatively wide margin of discretion in terms of the routine local operation of the system can create frictions and lead to isolated solutions that can be seen as sub-optimal

Evaluation of forensic DNA traces when propositions of interest relate to activities: analysis and discussion of recurrent concerns

When forensic scientists evaluate and report on the probative strength of single DNA traces, they commonly rely on only one number, expressing the rarity of the DNA profile in the population of interest. This is so because the focus is on propositions regarding the source of the recovered trace material, such as “the person of interest is the source of the crime stain.” In particular, when the alternative proposition is “an unknown person is the source of the crime stain,” one is directed to think about the rarity of the profile. However, in the era of DNA profiling technology capable of producing results from small quantities of trace material (i.e., non-visible staining) that is subject to easy and ubiquitous modes of transfer, the issue of source is becoming less central, to the point that it is often not contested. There is now a shift from the question “whose DNA is this?” to the question “how did it get there?” As a consequence, recipients of expert information are now very much in need of assistance with the evaluation of the meaning and probative strength of DNA profiling results when the competing propositions of interest refer to different activities. This need is widely demonstrated in day-to-day forensic practice and is also voiced in specialized literature. Yet many forensic scientists remain reluctant to assess their results given propositions that relate to different activities. Some scientists consider evaluations beyond the issue of source as being overly speculative, because of the lack of relevant data and knowledge regarding phenomena and mechanisms of transfer, persistence and background of DNA. Similarly, encouragements to deal with these activity issues, expressed in a recently released European guideline on evaluative reporting (Willis et al., 2015), which highlights the need for rethinking current practice, are sometimes viewed skeptically or are not considered feasible. In this discussion paper, we select and discuss recurrent skeptical views brought to our attention, as well as some of the alternative solutions that have been suggested. We will argue that the way forward is to address now, rather than later, the challenges associated with the evaluation of DNA results (from small quantities of trace material) in light of different activities to prevent them being misrepresented in court

The transnational exchange of DNA data: Global standards and local practices

The creation of systems for the transnational exchange of information raises multiple issues related to the establishment of common infrastructures, protocols and regulation. The development and adaptation of standards is paramount in reaching operational levels of harmonization. This paper focuses on the case of a system for the improvement of crossborder cooperation in the European Union through the exchange information among databases of Member States. The Prüm Treaty and the subsequent Prüm Decisions have established a framework for the exchange of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data, and vehicle registration data, for the purpose of combating cross-border crime and terrorism. The historical specificity of DNA profiling data in terms of the development of international standards and the sensitivity it represents for data protection regulation constitutes it as a relevant object in order to analyze the challenges raised in the context of transnational cooperation. First, this paper provides an overview of the trajectory and characteristics of DNA as an object of standardization. Second, through interviews with local actors involved in the implementation and operationalization of the network for the exchange of DNA data, the global standards are compared with practices at the local level. The adoption of minimal standards allows flexibility and autonomy at a local level, thus allowing interoperability to exist in a scenario of national differentiation. However, a relatively wide margin of discretion in terms of the routine local operation of the system can create frictions and lead to isolated solutions that can be seen as sub-optimal