Trumping communitarianism: crime control and forensic DNA typing and databasing in Singapore

Liberalism and communitarianism have figured prominently in discussions of how to govern forensic DNA practices (forensic DNA typing and databasing). Despite the prominence of these two political philosophies and their underlying values, no studies have looked at the governance of forensic DNA practices in a nondemocratic country governed by a communitarian logic. To fill this lacuna in the literature, this article considers Singapore as an authoritarian state governed by a communitarian philosophy. The article highlights basic innovations and technologies of forensic DNA practices and articulates a liberal democratic version of “biolegality” as described by Michael Lynch and Ruth McNally. It goes on to consider briefly various (political) philosophies (liberalism and communitarianism) and law enforcement models (due process and crime control models). The main part of the article records the trajectory, and hence biolegal progress, of forensic DNA practices in Singapore and compares it with trajectories in England and the United States. The article concludes that Singapore's forensic DNA practices are organized according to the crime control model and therefore safety and the war against crime and terrorism trump individual rights and legal principles such as privacy, bodily integrity, proportionality, presumption of innocence. and onus of proof

Bodies of Science and Law: Forensic DNA Profiling, Biological Bodies, and Biopower

How is jurisdiction transferred from an individual's biological body to agents of power such as the police, public prosecutor and judiciary, and what happens to these biological bodies when transformed from private into public objects? These questions are examined by analyzing bodies situated at the intersection of science and law. More specifically, the transformation of 'private bodies' into 'public bodies' shall be analyzed by going into the details of forensic DNA profiling in the Dutch jurisdiction. It will be argued that various 'forensic genetic practices' enact different 'forensic genetic bodies'. These enacted forensic genetic bodies are connected with various infringements of civil rights, which become articulated in exploring these forensic genetic bodies' 'normative registers'

Hidden in full sight: kinship, science and the law in the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide

Terms such as “relationship testing,” “familial searching” and “kinship analysis” figure prominently in professional practices of disaster victim identification (DVI). However, despite the dependence of those identification technologies on DNA samples from people who might be related to the dead and despite also the prominence of the notion of “relatedness” as a device for identifying the dead, the concepts of “relatedness” and “kinship” remain elusive both in practice and in analyses of the social and ethical aspects of DVI by DNA; they are hidden in full sight. In this article, we wish to bring kinship more to the fore. We achieve this through a case study of a setting where bio-legal framings dominate, that is, in the trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of Radovan Karadžić for the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. DNA samples from the families of those massacred in Srebrenica were vital for the identification of individual victims but are now also utilized as “evidence” by both the prosecution and the defense. By viewing practices of science (“evidence” and “identification”) and legal practices (“justice,” “prosecution” and “defence”) through the lens of kinship studies, we will present some alternative and complementary framings for the social accomplishment of ‘relatedness’

Bracketing off populations does not advance ethical reflection on EVCs: A reply to Kayser and Schneider

In a recent contribution to this journal, Kayser and Schneider reviewed the relevance of external visible characteristics (EVCs) for criminal investigation [1]. Their aim was to broaden the debate about the scientific, legal, and ethical dimensions of the use of EVCs for criminal investigation, which will help to achieve a firm legal basis for the application of EVCs eventually. While we applaud Kayser's and Schneider's overall very thoughtful and nuanced discussion of this topic, we were surprised to read that they suggest that a discussion of ‘the challenges of using problematic definitions of populations […] has to be kept separate from using EVCs’ (p. 158). In contrast to these authors, we contend that questions about defining populations – both at the level of scientific research, and the application of EVCs in criminal investigation – lie at the core of most social, ethical, and legal issues raised by the translation of EVCs into forensic and police practice

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

Dragers van waarheid: Twintig Jaar Forenisch DNA-onderzoek in Nederland

Forensic DNA profiling was introduced as legal and convincing evidence in Dutch courts of law in the late 1980s. Initially it was used to acquit suspects who volunteered a DNA sample, typically in the context of sex crimes. Later, after a special forensic DNA bill was passed in 1994, suspects of severe and violent crimes, like sexual assault and homicide, had to provide a DNA sample; if they refused, the strong arm of the law could enforce the order. In 1997, the Dutch DNA database was introduced. A DNA database compares DNA profiles automatically and constantly, and hence connects subject profiles to profiles obtained from scenes of crime. Therefore, a DNA database produces suspects for criminal investigation. The legislation was amended in 2001, enabling (investigating) judges and public prosecutors to order mandatory sampling of individuals suspected of having committed so-called 'volume' crimes like burglary and car theft. Subsequently, other genetic technologies were introduced to inform criminal investigations. As a result, criminal investigation and forensic genetics became closely interrelated. These transformations from DNA as evidence to DNA as an investigative lead, and its application first in 'severe' crimes and later also in 'volume' crimes, are in accord with a development that has been observed in many jurisdiction over the world, and hence is called the common trajectory (Williams & Johnson 2008: 1). In this book, Tooms analyzes the Dutch trajectory of forensic DNA profiling