While forensic techniques using DNA databases are effective in solving crimes, there are concerns about human rights violations and information leaks. It is necessary to strengthen crime prevention and victim protection by applying this technique not only to violent crimes but also to general criminal law crimes with high recidivism rates.
When a crime occurs, genetic information can be extracted from the perpetrator’s fingerprints, semen, saliva, etc. left at the crime scene to identify suspects and catch the perpetrator. In the past, evidence such as semen and saliva could only reveal the blood type, so investigators had to rely on other physical evidence and psychological evidence. These limitations led to wrongful trial outcomes, with innocent people being sentenced to death or the real culprit being acquitted. But in 1985, the development of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology revolutionized forensic science. By using PCR to amplify tiny amounts of DNA in large quantities, it became possible to obtain a person’s unique genetic information, not just their blood type, which allowed for more scientific and accurate identification of criminals.
The first time DNA analysis was used in a criminal investigation was in 1987 in a sex crime case in the United States. After obtaining genetic information from the evidence collected, DNA was taken from everyone within the suspect’s presumed area of operation and used to match the suspect’s genetic profile. This method was highly accurate, but the time burden of analyzing the DNA of hundreds or thousands of people in each case was a major problem. Therefore, for violent crimes such as rape, robbery, and murder, which have a high recidivism rate, a system was introduced to store the collected genetic information of criminals in a database. In Korea, the DNA analysis investigation method was first introduced in 1991, and in July 2010, a related law was passed by the National Assembly to establish a DNA database of criminals who commit violent crimes (murder, robbery, rape and molestation, sexual crimes against juveniles, drugs, assault, arson, etc. When a crime is committed, the perpetrator’s DNA collected at the scene can be compared to this database to see if there is a match, and if the perpetrator is a repeat offender, the investigation can be shortened to find the perpetrator more quickly.
Many people support the idea of codifying DNA evidence and adding it to the database to make investigations faster and more efficient. It is also hoped that the system will be used not only for violent crimes, but also for vice, property, and other criminal offenses to prevent recidivism and reduce the number of victims. However, despite these benefits, there are also opponents of expanding the scope of DNA collection. There are two main bases for opposition: human rights concerns and concerns about the leakage or misuse of personally identifiable information. Human rights organizations argue that it is a clear violation of human rights for individuals to be considered potential criminals and have their genetic information managed by the state even after they have completed their sentences, and that it will cause great social problems if the information is leaked to society and misused. In fact, in 1994, the Ministry of Justice and others pushed to introduce a genetic information bank for violent criminals, but it was canceled due to the backlash from civil society organizations that it violated human rights.
But let’s not overlook the fact that innocent citizens are also potential victims of crime around the clock. While the importance of human rights should apply equally to all, it is less meaningful when the protection of ex-offenders’ human rights results in victimization due to crimes that could have been prevented. According to the National Statistics Portal, in 2014, the same and different recidivism rates for violent offenders in criminal law crimes were about 60% for aggravated violent crimes such as murder and sexual assault, and 43% for violent violent crimes such as assault, intimidation, and confinement. Other crimes, such as vice, forgery, and crimes against public officials, were about 45%, 26%, and 18%, respectively, which are lower than violent crimes. However, it is important to note that for all recidivism cases, heterogeneous recidivism is much higher than homogeneous recidivism. In particular, for violent crimes, the rate of heterogeneous recidivism is seven times higher than that of homogeneous recidivism. This suggests that ex-offenders of common criminal law offenses rather than violent crimes are more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.
There are many cases where the genetic information of violent offenders has helped investigators. In the June 2016 sexual assault of a female teacher in an island village, the DNA of one of the suspects was matched to the DNA of a suspect in a 2007 sexual assault of a woman in her 20s in Daejeon, solving a case that had remained unsolved. In addition, in a robbery case in February 2015, the DNA of the perpetrator was matched to the DNA of a suspect in a similar rape case six years earlier. By storing the offender’s DNA, it has been possible to apprehend the perpetrators of violent crimes that have remained unsolved for a long time. Extending this system to common criminal offenses could help solve violent crimes with high recidivism rates. For example, if DNA is collected and stored from a person arrested for gambling, and the same person commits a sex crime years later, the DNA from the sex crime scene can be compared to the database to find the perpetrator. It can also save time and money in non-homicide cases, for example, in the investigation of high-recidivism crimes such as fraud and theft.
However, if DNA from all crimes is included in a database, there may be problems with data leakage or corruption in the process of managing such a large amount of information. The genetic information obtained through DNA forensics includes an individual’s personality, health status, possible diseases, and family genetic information, which can cause serious social problems if leaked to society. In addition, it would be an excessive violation of human rights if a person’s genetic information is subject to state control for the rest of his or her life and stigmatized as an ex-convict because of a single mistake. Therefore, it is desirable to expand the scope of DNA collection for crime prevention and harm reduction, but it should be limited to crimes that have a high recidivism rate and can lead to great harm. According to Statistics Korea, the highest number of criminal offenses in 2014 were traffic offenses (583,785), fraud (320,715), and theft (99,857), and their recidivism rates were about 32%, 26%, and 51%, respectively. In particular, fraud and theft have a high recidivism rate, so adding DNA information to the database can reduce time and economic losses during the investigation process when recidivism occurs.
The genetic information is only used as a criterion for determining whether a person is the same person, like fingerprinting, and no further interpretation (personality, medical history, etc.) is used in scientific investigations. Therefore, it is not convincing to oppose the expansion of DNA collection based on privacy concerns. However, there is a great concern about leakage of information, and to prevent human rights violations and leakage controversies, prosecutors currently collect DNA information with the consent of the individual, but only the minimum amount of information that can prove the identity of the individual. The information used in investigations is only the DNA bands (lined up in rows from small to large) that result from electrophoresis of the DNA, not the entirety of the information stored in the DNA. If only the DNA bands are coded and stored as data, and all other information is discarded, the privacy implications of a data breach would be limited. Considering that there have been no data breaches since the genebank was established in 2010, it is safe to calculate the amount of data that the genebank can handle and not exceed that limit.
Human rights organizations defend the human rights of criminals with the phrase “even criminals have human rights”. However, it is hard to argue that the victims’ human rights are more important. This is because all human rights are equal and cannot be prioritized. However, considering the diversification of criminal means as the times evolve and the cascading and secondary damage caused by the process of solving cases, expanding the scope of DNA collection under the premise of strictly controlling the information to ensure the safety of innocent citizens will help solve more criminal cases and reduce the damage.
