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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medicine, science, and the law science, and the law, 2009-04, Vol.49 (2), p.77-87 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 & jurisprudence ; Forensic Medicine - legislation & jurisprudence ; Genetic Privacy - legislation & jurisprudence ; Humans ; Informed Consent - legislation & 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 & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Forensic Medicine - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Genetic Privacy - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent - legislation & 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 & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Forensic Medicine - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Genetic Privacy - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent - legislation & 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 |