Keywords

The Role of Genetics in Crime Governance

Wherever it goes, the human body leaves traces behind: hair, saliva and other fluids, footprints and so on. Body’s materiality has been a key part of criminal investigations throughout history. The central role of the human body as the basis to identify authors of crimes has gained different shapes in the last 35 years, as forensic science became more commonplace in criminal justice systems.

Forensic science comprises a set of scientific disciplines and methodologies, whose goal is to help police-judicial procedures and activities. Among others, we can mention forensic toxicology, psychiatry and forensic psychology, anthropology and forensic odontology, criminalistics, biology and forensic genetics. This book will pay special attention to the last scientific discipline. Forensic genetics aims to identify with the greatest possible precision the biological origin of a sample, to help the justice system address and solve civil and criminal cases.

One of the most notable aspects of the use of forensic genetics in the field of criminal investigation is the ability to extract DNA profiles—a biological structure considered unique for every individual—from the samples collected at crime scenes or obtained from the bodies of people identified in the criminal investigation (e.g., suspects). This genetic information, if considered relevant by the professionals involved in the specific criminal investigation, may produce genetic evidence, which will subsequently be assessed in a court of criminal justice. This book proposes a sociological approach to the role and place of forensic genetics in the governance of crime in contemporary societies.

The concept governance of crime intends to highlight assumptions, discourses and strategies that shape this social sphere. The governance of crime encapsulates more than the social response to crime. It also incorporates new ways to monitor and control behaviours, as well as reconfigured forms to apply justice, which co-construct new concepts of order and social control (Garland, 2001). The concept of governance of crime will be, therefore, used throughout this book to show how the strategies applied to social groups considered as risky have gained a more managerial and less transformative tone (Feeley & Simon, 1992). We will frame in this context the growing, more expansive way that biometric technologies, in particular forensic genetics, have been applied to strategies pertaining to the governance of crime. By collecting, storing, exchanging and using genetic data on a large scale, new systems of social sorting are promoted and instituted (Lyon, 2002). These technological systems do not just act upon individuals, they create growingly elaborate ways, in terms of impact and reach, to monitor and control particular individuals and specific social groups. Finally, this concept also makes it possible to look beyond the way State structures govern current societies, in order to include other social institutions that also constitute the backbone of the governance of crime in contemporary societies. Such is the case of the networks producing scientific knowledge, making visible the symbolic power invested in science and technology. This also extends to non-governmental organizations, private companies, media, civil society and many others.

In current societies, genetics has an aura of objectivity, of being able to produce “certainties” and “truths” (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). Such notions are interesting to explore in order to understand the crime governance aspects from a sociological point of view (Wilson-Kovacs, 2014). They reflect, among others, public perceptions of science and technology, crime and justice, as well as the relationship of trust (or lack thereof) between the citizen, the State and various prominent modern institutions. One of the reasons explaining the importance given to genetic information in criminal investigations is the scientific statute of molecular genetics (Lynch, Cole, McNally, & Jordan, 2008). From the perspective of several professional groups, from forensic scientists to criminal investigators, judges and prosecutors, attorneys and the general public, DNA technologies and forensic genetic databases allegedly generate “more scientific” information, “more capable” to identify offenders in a quick and credible way (Aas, 2006; Lynch, 2003; Lynch et al., 2008; Machado & Prainsack, 2012). As such, many commentators have emphasized that the presence of genetic technologies such as DNA profiling in policing and as forensic evidence in courts can improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.

However, critical commentators have also speculated about the discriminatory potential of genetic technologies in the justice system, and the risks associated with their presumed infallibility in the identification of offenders. In this regard, social sciences have been especially critical about the social implications and policies deriving from genetic technologies bearing an exceptional status of complete ontological and mathematical certainty in contemporary societies (Hindmarsh & Prainsack, 2010; Kruse, 2016; Williams & Johnson, 2008). This “genetization” of social life (Heath, Rapp, & Taussig, 2004; Novas & Rose, 2000; Rabinow, 1996; Rose, 2007; Rose & Novas, 2005; Rouvroy, 2008; Wehling, 2011; Weiner, Martin, Richards, & Tutton, 2017) and the subsequent “genetization” of criminal investigations follow the determinations of what Theodore Porter (1995), North American science historian, designated as “mechanical objectivity”. Porter proposed this term to refer to the growing authority and symbolical power of “impersonal numbers” and statistics in various social, political and economic spheres, in detriment of human experiences and assessments (considered “subjective”).

This book portrays, under a critical sociological perspective, contemporary ways of reformulating the governance of crime through genetics. Such analysis is linked to a reflection of how the control of information flow and the management of inclusion and exclusion circuits is based upon calculations and risk prediction. It is important to note that this book presents itself as a critical reflection regarding the general enthusiasm shown towards the potential that genetics seemingly have to search and identify authors of crimes. In other words, beyond evaluating the plausibility of applying genetics to support criminal investigations and the operation of the justice system, the authors of this publication intend to question the social, cultural, political and ethical implications of using genetics in the field of the governance of crime.

Some questions addressed in this book are the following: What are the main trends of governance of crime in contemporary society through the lens of scientific knowledge and genetic technology? What place and role do genetics occupy in the criminal justice system? How can classical and contemporary social theory help to address current challenges posed by the social processes and interactions generated by the uses, meanings and expectations attributed to genetics in the governance of crime? Which methods and research techniques can be used by students and scholars to address some crucial aspects of this particular social reality? Which new challenges emerge from the recent paradigm shift within forensic genetics, moving from the construction of evidence to be presented in court to the production of intelligence to guide the course of a particular criminal investigation?

Book Overview

The scientific breakthroughs that have made it possible to use DNA as a tool of human identification began in the 1980s of the twentieth century. The first patent that would originate the modern processes of DNA profile extraction was registered by the biologist Jeffrey Glassberg (US) in 1983, and would subsequently be used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In the UK, the biologist Alec Jeffreys from the University of Leicester developed a method to extract DNA profiles in late 1984. The first criminal case solved by this technique was the rape and murder of two teenagers, which took place from 1983 to 1986 in Narborough, Leicestershire (England). This criminal case gained widespread coverage, both because it involved a technological breakthrough and due to the circumstances of the investigation. The criminal investigators asked for blood samples of about 5000 men residing in the geographical area around the crime scene. The goal was to perform DNA analysis, which eventually exonerated a first suspect who had already confessed to the crimes. Afterwards, blood was collected from another man—Colin Pitchfork—and it was found that his genetic profile matched the DNA found in the crime scene. In other words, this individual was identified as the one responsible for both crimes following an analysis of DNA profiles.

This and other success stories have contributed to disseminate social representations that characterize DNA technologies as “crime fighting heroes”, a kind of “truth machines” promising to remove judicial errors from the equation and sentence the authors of crime (Lynch et al., 2008). However, these assumptions forgo the necessarily complex and varied understanding of social reality. The second chapter of this book will present a systematization of the approach taken by sociology and other social sciences that aim to critically discuss the widespread success stories of DNA technologies. These stories have grown to be more common in societies ruled by the mystique associated with genes, reflecting and reproducing social processes involving relationships of power, knowledge, hierarchization and social inequalities.

The consolidation of the role of genetics in social life has also invigorated old discussions about the role played by biological and biosocial approaches aiming to explain and predict violent and criminal behaviour (Duster, 2003). By extension, this type of debate raises issues linked to biological determinism, in a way that might lead to promote renewed insight and initiatives focused on matters of social exclusion, marginalization and stigmatization. As such, there is the need to undertake a historical and sociological overview of the biological explanations for anti-social, violent and criminal behaviour. Therefore, the third chapter of this book aims to provide a detailed description of the seminal work by Lombroso (nineteenth century) and highlights the risks of biological determinism and potential stigmatization raised by this line of research. It then discusses current trends of biologization and genetization of crime, by focusing on the specific studies in the fields of neurobiology and epigenetics.

State governance strategies have been fostered based upon DNA potential for individualization. They are supported by a rhetoric that celebrates the efficiency and infallibility of science and technology. At the same time, they reduce the space allowed for criticism or dissonant voices which do not follow the values and ideologies of the dominant social order. Taking a critical perspective of this scenario, the fourth chapter of this book describes and systematizes the approaches of social sciences to the presence of DNA evidence in court.

A significant number of studies undertaken since the mid-90s of the twentieth century, mainly in the US, have addressed the social implications and the transformations in professional cultures and practices stemming from the presence of DNA technologies in the criminal justice system. Such contributions highlight the way DNA technologies shape new ways of governance of crime with profound implications thereof in the social structure, citizen rights and democratic dynamics in current societies.

The substantial potential of the DNA profiling methods created and developed in the US and the UK at the tail-end of the 80s to support the identification of authors of crimes led to efforts by law enforcement authorities in the following decade to develop ways to add the genetic profiles of people with criminal records to computerized databases. Therefore, 1995 saw the creation of the first criminal database featuring genetic profiles on a national context: the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database. Other countries have started processes to create their own national genetic databases. Namely, and to cite the largest databases currently existing in Europe, Austria and the Netherlands started theirs in 1997, Germany in 1998 and France in 2001.

A database of DNA profiles is constituted by a structured set of DNA profile files and personal data profiles, which can be accessed according to the predetermined legislation in effect in each country. These databases involve the collection, storage and use of genetic profiles belonging to identified suspects, convicted individuals, victims, voluntaries and other persons of interest to the criminal investigation. Nearly 69 countries are currently using forensic genetic databases, and there are estimates that this type of database is beginning to be implemented in about 34 other countries (Interpol, 2016). The fifth chapter of this book will present the different implications of the creation and development of forensic genetics databases, considering the necessary balance between curtailing civil rights and protecting society’s security.

Looking at forensic databases as a particularly ostentatious form of genetic surveillance of criminalized populations, we will discuss them within the scope of a society that is growingly focused on intensifying and accelerating the mass circulation and interlinking of data. In this context, the cultural and socio-economic phenomenon of big data is approached in this chapter as a part of a datafied society (Broeders & Dijstelbloem, 2016; French & Smith, 2016; Sadowski, 2019; Smith, 2016; van Dijck, 2014) where bio-surveillance technologies gain prominence. In other words, technologies based on processing information are linked to biological materials originating in the human body (Hindmarsh & Prainsack, 2010; Kloppenburg & van der Ploeg, 2018; Skinner, 2018b).

The forensic genetic databases and the associated DNA technologies are, therefore, continuously being expanded and developed, seeing as one of the facets of this expansion is also its growing interoperability. With the goal of strengthening police cooperation in the European Union, we have seen a rise in the number of international mechanisms for population surveillance and control. The sixth chapter focuses on this theme, particularly the way the opening of the European Union’s borders was followed by a proliferation of control mechanisms for transnational criminality. Among them, we outline the Prüm System, which represents a network created between EU Member States to exchange data stored in the national databases of various countries in the Union, with the goal of combating terrorism and cross-border criminality.

The implementation, development and expansion of the Prüm System have led to heated debates on issues of transparency, accountability and data privacy (McCartney, 2014; Prainsack & Toom, 2010; Toom, 2018; Toom, Granja, & Ludwig, 2019).

In a context marked by a datafied society, concepts such as ethnicity, race and national identity are recycled by the operators of forensic genetic databases as practical categories. These operational categories are mobilized as organizing principles and consequently sustained by a kind of rationality that assumes these categories as acquired data (Fujimura & Rajagopalan, 2011). However, several authors (Cole, 2007; Duster, 2006; Risher, 2009) have warned about the fact that new surveillance technologies have, inversely, reinforced the legitimacy of old prejudice and even created new ways to stigmatize and exclude, from the moment the surveillance technologies operate based on principles that separate suspect from non-suspect individuals (Van der Ploeg, 1999).

Following functional imperatives, a set of practices that would otherwise elicit some ethical reservations due to the curtailing of civil rights are applied to criminal investigations. In particular, we outline the following technologies: familial searching, that is, the act of looking up profiles in forensic DNA databases that are genetically close to a known sample that was collected at the crime scene (García, Crespillo, & Yurrebaso, 2017; Granja & Machado, 2019; Haimes, 2006; Murphy, 2010) and intelligence-led DNA massive screenings, consisting in collecting a significant number of DNA profiles in a specific area where the suspect is thought to reside (Chapin, 2004; Duster, 2008). In addition, the inference of geographical ancestry, performed upon determination of the statistical distribution of the genetic profiles by zone and the subsequent proximity of the known sample to a probable area of origin is used in tandem with the inference of physical features through DNA. The joint use of these two technologies is commonly known as forensic DNA phenotyping (M’charek, 2008; Queirós, 2019; Samuel & Prainsack, 2018, 2019; Skinner, 2018a; Vailly, 2017; Wienroth, 2018a, 2018b). The seventh chapter of this book will take a look at the use of these emerging DNA technologies and the notable scientific, ethical and legal controversies that have come to the fore.

Finally, the eighth and last chapter of the book will revisit, under a critical perspective, the multiplicity of roles and meanings of forensic genetics in the governance of crime in contemporary societies, while providing clues for future pathways for research in the field of social studies of forensic genetics.