Victor Toom

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 were now 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 ascent towards technological and political convergence and harmonisation, the (hi)story of Prüm is heterogeneous and halting. This is reflected also in the early stages of implementing the Prüm Decision which has proven to be more challenging 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.

Bracketing off population 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 Kaysers and Schneiders 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 practices

Forensic DNA databases in England and the Netherlands: governance, structure and performance compared

How do liberal democracies govern forensic DNA databasing? That is the question being asked in this contribution by focusing on the rules for inclusion of samples/profiles in DNA databases in England and Wales and the Netherlands. The two different modes of governance shall be evaluated by taking into account models and ideas in each society regarding the two imperatives of “crime control” and “due process.” Another question tentatively examined in this contribution is how these modes of governance impact on the performance of national DNA databases. The analysis provided in this article argues that, when compared with the English and Welsh mode of governance, the Dutch mode of governance is more beneficial for the protection of individual rights and the effective use of resources.

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’.

A comment on the Hill–Turney exchange: from normative antagonism to interdisciplinary collaboration

A recent issue of NGS the Policy, Ethics and Life Sciences Research Centre at Newcastle University (PEALS)). We currently collaborate on a range of research topics including the uses of the life sciences for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) . Some of us have worked as scientists commissioned by the UK Government and other agencies in response to particular disasters; others of us have an interest in the formation of policy and in the uses of science and technology as they affect a range of social goods including health, justice and security.

Whose Body Is It? Technolegal Materialization of Victims’ Bodies and Remains after the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks

This article empirically analyzes how victims’ remains were recovered, identified, repatriated, and retained after the World Trade Center (WTC) terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It does so by asking the question whose body is it. This question brings to the fore issues related to personhood and ownership: how are anonymous and unrecognizable bodily remains given back an identity; and who has ownership of or custody over identified and unidentified human remains? It is in this respect that the article engages with technoscientific and legal, or “technolegal,” trajectories of human remains in the wake of the WTC tragedy. By using the metaphor of “materialization,” it becomes possible to trace how remains are forensically identified and implicated in legal regimes. “Technolegal materialization” as a concept and methodological sensitivity contributes to the current “actor-network theory” (ANT)-inspired legal scholarship, which tends to focus on legal practices in courtrooms but not those beyond them. In this article, 9/11 victims’ remains are followed from “Ground Zero” to the forensic laboratory and beyond and articulates five instances of technolegal materialization of bodily remains and their past and contemporary existences.

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 Singapores 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.

Finding Closure, Continuing Bonds, and Codentification After the 9/11 Attacks

ABSTRACT In this article, I’m interested in the 2750 victims of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. I consider two connected issues. The first regards bereavement journeys of victims’ families and the significance of receiving a body to bury vis-à-vis the normative assignment to find closure. The second issue I address is how forensic experts, their technologies, and managing protocols interact with victims’ families and their emotions. Using insights from Science and Technology Studies, I articulate some of the goods and bads of identification practices and argue for extensive communication and cooperation between experts and victims’ families.

Approaching ethical, legal and social issues of emerging forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technologies comprehensively: Reply to 'Forensic DNA phenotyping: Predicting human appearance from crime scene material for investigative purposes' by Manfred Kayser

In a recent special issue of the journal on new trends in forensic genetics, Manfred Kayser contributed a review of developments, opportunities and challenges of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). In his article he argues that FDP technologies – such as determining eye, hair and skin color – should be considered as akin to a “biological witness” with the potential of providing more accurate information than traditional eye witnesses [1]...In this letter, we add some of these missing dimensions to the proposals made by Kayser, embedding our response to his paper into a wider discourse of forensic genetics studies, and addressing the wider community of forensic geneticists, practitioners and policy makers.

Approaching ethical, legal and social issues of emerging forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technologies comprehensively

In a recent special issue of the journal on new trends in forensic genetics, Manfred Kayser contributed a review of developments, opportunities and challenges of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). In his article he argues that FDP technologies – such as determining eye, hair and skin color – should be considered as akin to a “biological witness” with the potential of providing more accurate information than traditional eye witnesses [1]...In this letter, we add some of these missing dimensions to the proposals made by Kayser, embedding our response to his paper into a wider discourse of forensic genetics studies, and addressing the wider community of forensic geneticists, practitioners and policy makers.