Implications of Creating more National Databases of Personal Data - Term Paper Example

Implications of Creating more National Databases of Personal Data (Biometric or Non-Biometric) Student’s Name: Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Introduction Since Alec Jeffrey’s proposal for forensic scientists to use DNA profiling to determine if indeed suspects can be linked to purported crimes, the use of forensic technologies has been on the rise. To support such technologies, crime investigators and their respective governments have created databases that hold biometric data for either immediate use of for future reference. One such database is the United Kingdom’s National DNA Database (NDNAD). While most commentators agree that DNA profiling is a major development in solving crimes, there is contention of the need to keep the DNA profiles of people who have been considered innocent in the NDNAD. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights advised the UK government in a 2008 ruling that in addition to restricting the use of DNA profiles gotten from arrestees, the government should establish timeframes for the removal of the same from the NDNAD (S. & Marper v. United Kingdom, 2008). Notably, supporters of the retention of DNA profiles in the expansive database maintained in England and Wales argue that it is advantageous to the larger society especially in matters related to crime scene investigations. Critics of the expansive database however argue that they are an affront to people’s right to privacy, and could even be discriminatory. As a matter of fact, the very same person whose discoveries revolutionised criminal investigation using DNA commented that the retention of people’s profiles in national databases is likely “to be discriminatory; it won’t affect people at random but be skewed in favour of certain socioeconomic and ethnic groups” (Jeffreys, cited by Gibb, 2005). This paper identifies the positive and negative aspects of DNA retention in the national databases such as the NDNAD. Positive aspects of DNA retention in national databases Whenever a person performs a criminal act, they are likely to leave traces of their presence in the crime scene. The use of DNA profiling helps investigators to link or exonerate suspects from the crime based on samples collected at the scene and those taken from the individual suspect. Additionally, Deray (2011) observes that DNA profiles from new arrestees are checked against the existing database to determine if they match any past unresolved crimes. Hence, the database are one way of ensuring that the society is safe and that justice is enhanced for all. A point in case was the 2005 Sally Anne murder case, which was resolved after the perpetrator was arrested nine months later in a bar brawl. On screening, the man’s DNA was found to be a perfect match to the samples that had been collected from Sally Anne’s murder scene (Naughton, 2008). As a result, Mark Dixie, 37 was convicted of murder and sexual assault, for which he was sentenced to 34 years in prison. The retention of DNA profiles in the national databases could also act as crime prevention incentives in the future. As Wallace (2007) notes, people understand that the entry of their DNA profiles in the database is tantamount to treating them as future crime suspects. As such, a significant number of would-be criminals are deterred from crime since they understand that their DNA can easily be matched with their existing profiles as contained in the national database. Negative aspects of DNA retention in national databases Some of the outstanding negative aspects of DNA retention in national databases relate to the threat it posses to people’s rights to privacy. Wallace specifically observes that the DNA samples contain “unlimited amounts of genetic information” about individuals (Wallace, 2006, p. S27). In a society that values privacy and the right of people to be shielded from unnecessary public exposure, there are fears that the retention of DNA profiles poses a threat to people’s genetic privacy and could even lead to the revelation of people’s health statuses or family relationships (Wallace, 2006). Secondly, there are fears that DNA retention can be used as a surveillance instrument hence contravening civil liberties (Wallace, 2007). Most notably, the retention puts arrestees (guilty or otherwise) on a permanent record of suspects and this may alter how the society and even the state view them. Consequently, one can argue that DNA retention in national databases negates the legal principle that renders people innocent until they are proven guilty. The possibility of government misuse of DNA profiles also exists especially in regard to extending the same to genetic researchers without express authorisation from the citizenry (Wallace, 2007). Levitt (2007) for example cites an incident where the NDNAD was used for research. The major concern to human right activists was the fact that no consent was acquired from individuals whose profiles were included in the research. Opponents of such practices argue that medical research, regardless of its benefits to the larger society, should not be carried out on non-consenting individuals (Levitt, 2007). Another negative aspect of DNA profile retention in the national databases relates to the prevalence of discriminative tendencies in the criminal justice system. Wallace (2005) for example notes that by 2005, the NDNAD contained an excess of one-third of the “black male population of the UK” (p. S26). Such racial targeting could cause unrest among members of a specific race, who may argue that the DNA database is victimising them based on their skin colour. There is also the possibility that the public will reduce its support towards law enforcement’s use of DNA profiles, especially if they perceive the retention of the same profiles in databases as an intrusion to their privacy. According to Slack (2009), there is little evidence to support the notion that the retention of profiles enhances criminal detection or intelligence. In fact, the expanding database’s inclusion of profiles from children aged below 18 years, and its apparent partiality towards men of African descent, can only be a matter of public concern in the future. Hence, one can argue that the retention of innocent people’s DNA profiles will probably lead to a situation where law enforcement using DNA profiling loses public trust, while having little or no benefit to detection of criminals. The inclusion of DNA profiles for children aged below 10 years also reflects the negative side of DNA retention in national databases. According to Slack (2009), the revelation that the DNA profile of a one-year-old child was being in the national database sparked public outcry, with some commentators condemning such acts by the police as not only illegal, but also ineffective. Ideally, DNA profiles are stored in the database for purposes of identifying or exonerating suspects either in past or future crimes. The inclusion of children’s profiles is therefore beyond the immediate objective of the database since children can only be held responsible for crimes when they are above ten years of age. Since most children do not present conceivable criminal threats, Slack (2009) observes that the inclusion of their profiles in the DNA database makes the citizenry all the more suspicious about law enforcers’ use of DNA profiles in crime investigation. Such suspicions may create disquiet among members of the public regarding DNA profiling for criminal justice purposes. In fact, some critics argue that the UK government is trying to create a universal criminal DNA database without explicitly informing the public about the same (Deray, 2011, p. 765). Unlike the fingerprinting technology, Deray (2011, p. 766) argues that DNA is not completely unique to an individual; specifically, Deray (2011) argues that identical twins have the same genetic makeup and this may mean that an individual whose identical twin’s DNA profile is stored in the national database can be erroneously implicated in a crime. A research by the Californian police (cited by Deray, 2011, p. 766) indicates that misidentification among individuals with the same DNA profiles can be as high as one in every ten thousand cases. Such findings indicate that DNA technology is not entirely foolproof and could even be misleading. Another significant negative aspect of the retaining DNA profiles of arrestees who are either not charged or convicted is contained in the fact that the system perceives them with suspicion even when they have been cleared of any wrongdoing. The probability of law enforcement officers targeting people they perceive as more likely to commit crimes cannot be ignored. Deray (2011) for example cites a case where a UK police officer admitted to targeting specific juveniles based on their DNA profiles. The Officer claimed that such targeting was part of his “long-term crime prevention strategy” (Deray, 2011, p. 768). If police were to use the national database for such pre-determination of guilt even where individuals have not been convicted of any wrong-doing, then the databases will no doubt become a hazardous tool for perpetuating biased and subjective justice. In conclusion, it is worth noting that the need to attain the perfect balance between the public benefit in storing DNA data in national databases and the need to uphold individual rights to privacy is not a straightforward undertaking. Hence, the UK government needs to weigh its options carefully. Notably, the government needs to tread cautiously in matters pertaining to children. Specifically, DNA profiles for all children aged below ten years should not be retained in the national database. The government can also arrest public fears of DNA profile misuse by reassuring the public and demonstrating that the profiles can, and will only be used for criminal investigation purposes. Otherwise, the government stands the risk of undermining the confidence that public has towards the police force. References Deray, E S 2011, ‘The double-helix double-edged sword: comparing DNA retention policies of the United States and the United Kingdom,’ Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 44, no. 745, pp. 745-775. Gibb, F 2005, ‘The DNA scientist who made individuals of us all,’ Times Online, viewed 06 January 2012 Levitt, M 2007, ‘The National DNA Database: Why No Public Debate?’ viewed 06 January 2012 < http://www.ccels.cf.ac.uk/archives/issues/2006/levitt.pdf>. Naughton, P 2008, ‘Britain needs DNA database, says officer who header sally Anne murder inquiry,’ Times Online, viewed 06 January 2012 S. & Marper v. United Kingdom 2008, viewed 06 January 2012, . Slack, J 2009, ‘DNA of one-year-old baby held on national database,’ Mail Online News, viewed 6 January 2012 . Wallace, H 2006, ‘The UK national DNA database: balancing crime detection, human rights and privacy,’ EMBO Reports, vol. 7, no. S1, pp. S26-S30. Read More