DNA Retention for Criminal Investigation - Assignment Example

DNA Retention The National DNA Database which was set up in 1995 has faced some minor changes in the law since then. Initially, police were supposed to collect DNA for all the people arrested for a reasonable charge and destroy it if the person was acquitted. However, in 2001, this law was changed which allowed keeping the DNA indefinitely. Again in 2003, the law was altered to collect DNA on arrest of a recordable crime rather than just a point of charge. This principle of maintaining the DNA of anyone arrested highlighted countless innocent people including children who had never been convicted, but have their DNA retained in the Database forever. Because of this, the DNA database is considered extremely discriminatory. In the year 2008, this issue was brought up by the European Court of Human Rights in S and Marper v UK case and concluded that this policy violates the rights to privacy of innocent people under the European Convention of Human Rights. Then in 2010, in answer to this issue a law was passed which restricts the DNA retention of innocent people. Six years was confirmed for the adults and three years for children. (Michael Lwin, 2010) Still, this policy continued to create discrimination and stayed arguable among many regions. In 2010, the Government was again compelled to modify the law and shift to the ‘Scottish model’ which defines the right to destroy DNA of anyone arrested but not charged or charged but later found not guilty for most offenses. It also explains the policy of limited time DNA retention for people who were charged of serious wrongdoings like sexual assault or violence (Bruce Barbour; NSW Ombudsman.; New South Wales. Office of the Ombudsman, 2006). The collection of DNA samples are still a major subject of discrimination among many innocent people. It has given significant boom to social and ethical issues which are because most arrestees were found innocent of crime but their DNA were kept for indefinite time. Moreover, if innocent people’s DNA is kept in police database, it is possible that the DNA might match or partially match the DNA found at the locations of crime. This can create a big problem for a person who has been once arrested but never convicted or anyone who is totally innocent. This issue is ethically and socially correct as innocent people would be suspected of criminal activities at the crime scene where their DNA is even slightly similar. A DNA sample illustrates sensitive information about an individual’s genetics for instance family relations and diseases vulnerability. Naturally, no one likes his or her personal information to be accessible. Police, forensic science department and researchers using this sensitive information without the consent of the DNA beholder have offended any innocent people who have given their DNA. They see it as violation of their civil liberties and interference in personal privacy of an individual ( Andromachi Tseloni; Ken Pease, 2011). It has been observed in United Kingdom’s criminal DNA database that racial minorities are overrepresented in the number of arrestees. Now this gives a rise to racial differences and institutionalized racial biasness in the criminal justice department. When a large number of minorities are populating the DNA database, police would be likely to suspect one from the minorities rather than the actual criminal. This way an innocent individual would be convicted only because of the race he falls in. DNA retention for the Criminal Investigation Department has raised several concerns among many innocent people but we must not overlook the good it does for the criminals who should be actually punished. DNA retention serves the police department in many ways too. Likewise, it is observed that majority of the crimes are committed by the people who have been already arrested for other offenses. If the DNA database already has the DNA banked, it could become very easy for the police to identify the suspect or criminal. This way DNA database becomes as useful as the fingerprint database. It becomes quite unproblematic and uncomplicated to identify the suspect or the criminal with similar DNAs in hand (Sheldon Krimsky; Tania Simoncelli, 2011). Through sources it was also revealed that many innocent people are serving their parole in jail for the criminal activities they never committed. Had DNA samples been taken at the time of arrest, these inoffensive individuals could have easily been proven not guilty and would not be serving imprisonment for not committing any crime (Andrea Campbell, 1999). It is also believed that collection of DNA samples from all arrestees could result in saving expenses incurred for investigation, prosecution and incarceration. DNA Retention of innocent people is being widely criticized because of the problems that it can pose for these citizens. Moreover it has also been argued that ever since the DNA retention began in UK it has been seen that the number of black people in the database have increased. The problem has reached such limits that it has even been brought to a judgment in the Supreme Court of United Kingdom. Collecting the samples of innocent civilians for an indefinite period does not provide any justification for the crimes that are being committed in the state (Whitehead 2011). Hence, we can deduce that DNA retention for criminal investigation has been appreciated and has been criticized in different aspects in different regions. It can genuinely become a problem for people who have been arrested for a recordable offense but had been released for not being guilty. Whereas, it can serve for the police department in identifying the right criminal or suspect as well. On the other hand it is nearly intruding in the lives of people by keeping the DNA for an indefinite period. In some cases this large database may result in some problems and an innocent being may be convicted. It is for this reason that many cases are being filed against the process of DNA retention for these innocent beings. In the upcoming years, we will probably see more changes in the DNA retention laws as it is an arguable discussion for all times. References: Lwin, M. (January 01, 2010). Privacy issues with DNA databases and retention of individuals' DNA information by law enforcement agencies: the holding of the European Court of Human Rights case S and Marper v. United Kingdom should be adapted to American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.Information & Communications Technology Law, 19, 2, 189-222. Barbour, B., NSW Ombudsman., & New South Wales. Office of the Ombudsman. (2006). DNA sampling and other forensic procedures conducted on suspects and volunteers under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000. Sydney: NSW Ombudsman. Tseloni, A., & Pease, K. (January 01, 2011). DNA retention after arrest: Balancing privacy interests and public protection. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 1, 32-47 Krimsky, S., & Simoncelli, T. (2011). Genetic justice: DNA data banks, criminal investigations, and civil liberties. New York: Columbia University Press. Campbell, A. (1999). Forensic science: Evidence, clues, and Investigation. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers. Innocent DNA retention to be challenged. Tom Whitehead 2011. The Telegraph. Read More