Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper

The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of S and Marper highlights some of the crucial ethical and legal issues relating to privacy, informed consent and discrimination raised by the use of forensic databases. This article explains the judgment and discusses some broad...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine, science, and the law science, and the law, 2009-04, Vol.49 (2), p.77-87
1. Verfasser: Hepple, Bob
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 87
container_issue 2
container_start_page 77
container_title Medicine, science, and the law
container_volume 49
creator Hepple, Bob
description The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of S and Marper highlights some of the crucial ethical and legal issues relating to privacy, informed consent and discrimination raised by the use of forensic databases. This article explains the judgment and discusses some broader questions, in particular the reliability of fingerprint and DNA evidence and its effectiveness in preventing and detecting crime. The approach of the European judges is strongly rights-based, in contrast to the unsophisticated utilitarianism of the English courts. Their main objection is to the ‘blanket and indiscriminate’ retention of all kinds of forensic bioinformation. Not only does this make it difficult to justify a compulsory population-wide database, but it will also require strict criteria for retention of each kind of bioinformation and adequate safeguards for both convicted and unconvicted individuals.
doi_str_mv 10.1258/rsmmsl.49.2.77
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67395526</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1258_rsmmsl.49.2.77</sage_id><sourcerecordid>67395526</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-7e80d1fbdf65201d7c5917068c12d059ed9a01f34ddd3b529f0514ea84a38ca23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFLxDAQRoMo7rp69Sg9eZHWJE2aRPAgi6vCigf1HNIk1Urb1Ex78N_bpQuePA3DvO-DeQidE5wRyuV1hLaFJmMqo5kQB2hJMaMpkUQeoiXGlKcSU7ZAJwBfGHMmuDxGC6J4LhhjS3S7CdF3UNvEmcGUBjzcJHXbN7U1Qx06SEKVDJ8-sbvTbnlNTOeSZxN7H0_RUWUa8Gf7uULvm_u39WO6fXl4Wt9tU5tLMaTCS-xIVbqq4BQTJyxXROBCWkId5so7ZTCpcuacy0tOVYU5Yd5IZnJpDc1X6HLu7WP4Hj0Muq3B-qYxnQ8j6ELkinNaTGA2gzYGgOgr3ce6NfFHE6x3wvQsTDOlqRZiClzsm8ey9e4P3xuagKsZAPPh9VcYYzd9-l_dLwZydbQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67395526</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Hepple, Bob</creator><creatorcontrib>Hepple, Bob</creatorcontrib><description>The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of S and Marper highlights some of the crucial ethical and legal issues relating to privacy, informed consent and discrimination raised by the use of forensic databases. This article explains the judgment and discusses some broader questions, in particular the reliability of fingerprint and DNA evidence and its effectiveness in preventing and detecting crime. The approach of the European judges is strongly rights-based, in contrast to the unsophisticated utilitarianism of the English courts. Their main objection is to the ‘blanket and indiscriminate’ retention of all kinds of forensic bioinformation. Not only does this make it difficult to justify a compulsory population-wide database, but it will also require strict criteria for retention of each kind of bioinformation and adequate safeguards for both convicted and unconvicted individuals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-8024</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2042-1818</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1258/rsmmsl.49.2.77</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19537444</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Databases, Factual - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Forensic Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Genetic Privacy - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Humans ; Informed Consent - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Medicine, science, and the law, 2009-04, Vol.49 (2), p.77-87</ispartof><rights>Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-7e80d1fbdf65201d7c5917068c12d059ed9a01f34ddd3b529f0514ea84a38ca23</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19537444$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hepple, Bob</creatorcontrib><title>Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper</title><title>Medicine, science, and the law</title><addtitle>Med Sci Law</addtitle><description>The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of S and Marper highlights some of the crucial ethical and legal issues relating to privacy, informed consent and discrimination raised by the use of forensic databases. This article explains the judgment and discusses some broader questions, in particular the reliability of fingerprint and DNA evidence and its effectiveness in preventing and detecting crime. The approach of the European judges is strongly rights-based, in contrast to the unsophisticated utilitarianism of the English courts. Their main objection is to the ‘blanket and indiscriminate’ retention of all kinds of forensic bioinformation. Not only does this make it difficult to justify a compulsory population-wide database, but it will also require strict criteria for retention of each kind of bioinformation and adequate safeguards for both convicted and unconvicted individuals.</description><subject>Databases, Factual - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Forensic Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Genetic Privacy - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0025-8024</issn><issn>2042-1818</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFLxDAQRoMo7rp69Sg9eZHWJE2aRPAgi6vCigf1HNIk1Urb1Ex78N_bpQuePA3DvO-DeQidE5wRyuV1hLaFJmMqo5kQB2hJMaMpkUQeoiXGlKcSU7ZAJwBfGHMmuDxGC6J4LhhjS3S7CdF3UNvEmcGUBjzcJHXbN7U1Qx06SEKVDJ8-sbvTbnlNTOeSZxN7H0_RUWUa8Gf7uULvm_u39WO6fXl4Wt9tU5tLMaTCS-xIVbqq4BQTJyxXROBCWkId5so7ZTCpcuacy0tOVYU5Yd5IZnJpDc1X6HLu7WP4Hj0Muq3B-qYxnQ8j6ELkinNaTGA2gzYGgOgr3ce6NfFHE6x3wvQsTDOlqRZiClzsm8ey9e4P3xuagKsZAPPh9VcYYzd9-l_dLwZydbQ</recordid><startdate>20090401</startdate><enddate>20090401</enddate><creator>Hepple, Bob</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090401</creationdate><title>Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper</title><author>Hepple, Bob</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-7e80d1fbdf65201d7c5917068c12d059ed9a01f34ddd3b529f0514ea84a38ca23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Databases, Factual - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Forensic Medicine - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Genetic Privacy - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hepple, Bob</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medicine, science, and the law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hepple, Bob</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper</atitle><jtitle>Medicine, science, and the law</jtitle><addtitle>Med Sci Law</addtitle><date>2009-04-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>77</spage><epage>87</epage><pages>77-87</pages><issn>0025-8024</issn><eissn>2042-1818</eissn><abstract>The recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of S and Marper highlights some of the crucial ethical and legal issues relating to privacy, informed consent and discrimination raised by the use of forensic databases. This article explains the judgment and discusses some broader questions, in particular the reliability of fingerprint and DNA evidence and its effectiveness in preventing and detecting crime. The approach of the European judges is strongly rights-based, in contrast to the unsophisticated utilitarianism of the English courts. Their main objection is to the ‘blanket and indiscriminate’ retention of all kinds of forensic bioinformation. Not only does this make it difficult to justify a compulsory population-wide database, but it will also require strict criteria for retention of each kind of bioinformation and adequate safeguards for both convicted and unconvicted individuals.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>19537444</pmid><doi>10.1258/rsmmsl.49.2.77</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-8024
ispartof Medicine, science, and the law, 2009-04, Vol.49 (2), p.77-87
issn 0025-8024
2042-1818
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67395526
source MEDLINE; HeinOnline Law Journal Library
subjects Databases, Factual - legislation & jurisprudence
Forensic Medicine - legislation & jurisprudence
Genetic Privacy - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence
United Kingdom
title Forensic databases: implications of the cases of S and Marper
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T21%3A07%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Forensic%20databases:%20implications%20of%20the%20cases%20of%20S%20and%20Marper&rft.jtitle=Medicine,%20science,%20and%20the%20law&rft.au=Hepple,%20Bob&rft.date=2009-04-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&rft.epage=87&rft.pages=77-87&rft.issn=0025-8024&rft.eissn=2042-1818&rft_id=info:doi/10.1258/rsmmsl.49.2.77&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67395526%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67395526&rft_id=info:pmid/19537444&rft_sage_id=10.1258_rsmmsl.49.2.77&rfr_iscdi=true