Global summary - Revision history

Admin at 17:17, 7 October 2020

2020-10-07T17:17:21Z

Show changes

Admin at 08:27, 31 August 2017

2017-08-31T08:27:19Z

Admin at 16:55, 10 February 2016

2016-02-10T16:55:59Z

Admin at 16:54, 10 February 2016

2016-02-10T16:54:26Z

Admin at 16:36, 10 February 2016

2016-02-10T16:36:07Z

Admin at 18:33, 9 February 2016

2016-02-09T18:33:58Z

Admin at 17:10, 9 February 2016

2016-02-09T17:10:55Z

Admin at 09:56, 27 January 2016

2016-01-27T09:56:14Z

Admin at 21:51, 26 January 2016

2016-01-26T21:51:59Z

Admin at 21:49, 26 January 2016

2016-01-26T21:49:22Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 According to Interpol, there are DNA databases in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Bahrain Bahrain], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Egypt Egypt], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Iran Iran], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Jordan Jordan], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Morocco Morocco], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia Saudi Arabia], [http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sudan Sudan], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Lebanon Lebanon] and [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Tunisia Tunisia]. However, many of these databases appear to be small or aspirational. [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Qatar Qatar] adopted DNA database legislation in September 2013.
-In 2016, [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Kuwait Kuwait] became the only country in the world to adopt legislation to put its entire population and all visitors on a DNA database. Implementation of this plan is pending. The [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Arab_Emirates United Arab Emirates (UAE)] appears to have dropped previous plans to do so and has instead focused on improving the quality of DNA analysis from crime scenes, whilst maintaining its existing database.
+In 2016, [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Kuwait Kuwait] became the only country in the world to adopt legislation to put its entire population and all visitors on a DNA database. However, this plan has since been dropped and the law is being revised. The [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Arab_Emirates United Arab Emirates (UAE)] appears to have dropped previous plans to do so and has instead focused on improving the quality of DNA analysis from crime scenes, whilst maintaining its existing database.
 [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Israel Israel] has a criminal DNA database and has created a controversial DNA database of African migrants crossing into Israel from Egypt.
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 There is a plan build a DNA database in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Algeria Algeria] and a small number of samples have already been collected. At end 2013, Algeria received CODIS DNA database software from the USA. According to Interpol, DNA databases are also planned in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Libya Libya], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Oman Oman] and [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Syria Syria].  Political instability in the region means that it is unlikely all these plans will be realised in the foreseeable future.
-The six member countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have previously discussed plans to exchange fingerprint and security information, potentially including DNA profiles, between states. However, it is unclear whether this plan is being implemented.
+The six member countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have previously discussed plans to exchange fingerprint and security information, potentially including DNA profiles, between states. However, this plan now appears unlikely to be implemented.
 US and UK intelligence services have built a database of DNA collected in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Afghanistan Afghanistan] and [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Iraq Iraq].

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 '''Americas'''
-The world's second largest DNA database (after China's) is in the [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_States USA] (although it contains a smaller proportion of the population than the UK database). The US federal DNA database (CODIS) was established in 1998 and includes DNA profiles submitted under laws which vary state by state. The Justice for All Act, 2004, expanded the national database by allowing the retention of DNA profiles from anyone charged with a felony offence.  The Violence Against Women Act, 2005, allows DNA profiles to be uploaded on arrest, rather than on charge. About half of US states have changed their laws to allow collection of DNA on arrest, a practice which was found to be lawful by the US Supreme Court in 2013 (the Maryland v King case). In some states, DNA profiles taken from arrested persons are automatically removed if the person is innocent of the alleged offence, but in many states removals only take place in response to individual requests, meaning that most innocent people's DNA profiles are retained indefinitely in those states.
+The world's second largest DNA database (after China's) is in the [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_States USA] (although it contains a smaller proportion of the population than the UK database). The US federal DNA database (CODIS) was established in 1998 and includes DNA profiles submitted under laws which vary state by state. The Justice for All Act, 2004, expanded the national database by allowing the retention of DNA profiles from anyone charged with a felony offence.  The Violence Against Women Act, 2005, allows DNA profiles to be uploaded on arrest, rather than on charge. About half of US states have changed their laws to allow collection of DNA on arrest, a practice which was found to be lawful by the US Supreme Court in 2013 (the Maryland v King case). In some states, DNA profiles taken from arrested persons are automatically removed if the person is innocent of the alleged offence, but in at least 18 states removals only take place in response to individual requests, meaning that most innocent people's DNA profiles are retained indefinitely in those states. Many DNA samples are also retained indefinitely.
 According to Interpol, DNA databases have also been established in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Argentina Argentina],[http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Brazil Brazil], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Canada Canada], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Chile Chile], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Colombia Colombia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Peru Peru] and [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Jamaica Jamaica]. [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Uruguay Uruguay] adopted DNA database legislation in 2011, however it is unclear to what extent this has been implemented.

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 In 2008, in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom (known as the Marper case), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints in England, Wales and Northern Ireland contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement applies in all 47 member countries of the Council of Europe.
-The [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Kingdom UK] database was the first to be established (in 1995) and is the third largest in the world (after China and the USA), containing a higher proportion of the population than any other country's database. Indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA profiles (introduced in England and Wales in 2001, but not in Scotland) became highly controversial. New legislation was introduced in 2012 to remove innocent people's and some children's records in order to comply with human rights law (the Marper judgment). In 2013, more than 1.7 million DNA profiles were removed from the database and more than 7.75 million stored DNA samples were destroyed. However, some controversy has continued regarding the collection of DNA routinely on arrest, especially from children, retrospective sampling of convicted persons, and retention of data from persons convicted or cautioned for minor offences. In 2011-12 an innocent man spent 5 months in prison in England accused of rape due to contamination of his DNA in a forensic laboratory.
+The [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Kingdom UK] database was the first to be established (in 1995) and is the third largest in the world (after China and the USA), containing a higher proportion of the population than any other country's database. Indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA profiles (introduced in England and Wales in 2001, but not in Scotland) became highly controversial. New legislation was introduced in 2012 to remove innocent people's and some children's records in order to comply with human rights law (the Marper judgment). In 2013, more than 1.7 million DNA profiles were removed from the database and more than 7.75 million stored DNA samples were destroyed. The match rate when a crime scene DNA profile is loaded onto the database has continued to increase, as has the proportion of recorded crimes leading to an outcome recorded by the police (such as someone being charged) following a DNA match. Thus, the new legal safeguards did not cause any reduction in the role of the database in solving crimes. However, some controversy has continued regarding the collection of DNA routinely on arrest, especially from children, retrospective sampling of convicted persons, and retention of data from persons convicted or cautioned for minor offences. In 2011-12 an innocent man spent 5 months in prison in England accused of rape due to contamination of his DNA in a forensic laboratory.
 DNA databases currently exist in 26 of the 28 European Union (EU) member states: [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Austria Austria], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Belgium Belgium], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Bulgaria Bulgaria], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Croatia Croatia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Cyprus Cyprus], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Czech_Republic Czech Republic], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Denmark Denmark], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Estonia Estonia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Finland Finland], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=France France], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Germany Germany], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Greece Greece], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Hungary Hungary], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Italy Italy], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Latvia Latvia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Lithuania Lithuania], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Luxembourg Luxembourg], the [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Netherlands Netherlands], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Poland Poland], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Portugal Portugal], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Romania Romania], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Slovakia Slovakia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Slovenia Slovenia], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Spain Spain], [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Sweden Sweden] and the [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Kingdom United Kingdom].

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Sixty four countries have operational forensic DNA databases: Austria, Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Korea (Rep. of), Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Lebanon, Macedonia (FYR), Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan.
-The largest DNA databases are in China (estimated at more than 8 million, less than 1% of the population), the USA (14.3 million, 4.5% of the population) and the United Kingdom (5.7 million, 9% of the population). The UK database is the only one that has reduced in size, without any negative effect on crime detection rates.
+The largest DNA databases are in China (estimated at more than 8 million, less than 1% of the population), the USA (14.3 million, 4.5% of the population) and the United Kingdom (5.7 million, 9% of the population). The UK database is the only one that has reduced in size: removing records from innocent people has not had any negative effect on crime detection rates.
 '''Southern Africa'''

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Sixty four countries have operational forensic DNA databases: Austria, Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Korea (Rep. of), Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Lebanon, Macedonia (FYR), Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan.
-The largest DNA databases are in China, the USA and the United Kingdom.
+The largest DNA databases are in China (estimated at more than 8 million, less than 1% of the population), the USA (14.3 million, 4.5% of the population) and the United Kingdom (5.7 million, 9% of the population). The UK database is the only one that has reduced in size, without any negative effect on crime detection rates.
-−
 '''Southern Africa'''
@@ Line 79: / Line 78: @@
 EU countries must all implement data protection legislation in line with the EU Data Protection Directive.
-The inclusion of children and protestors on the DNA database in France has been controversial. Its DNA database law was found constitutional with reservations in 2010. In Germany, critics have questioned the inclusion of some categories of persons on the DNA database and plans to allow automated searches and sharing of DNA profile matches with the USA. In 2009, German police discovered they had been tracking someone they thought was a murderer for two years who turned out to be a woman involved in making cotton buds used for the collection of police DNA samples that were contaminated with her DNA. The use of DNA evidence in Italy came under international scrutiny in the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher and the subsequent conviction then acquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
+The inclusion of children and protestors on the DNA database in France has been controversial. Its DNA database law was found constitutional with reservations in 2010. In France, the DNA database has been growing rapidly, more than doubling in size over 5 years: more than 2.6 million individuals now have DNA profiles on the database (4% of the population.
 The law in Denmark was amended to comply with the Marper judgment in 2010. It is unclear whether Estonia and Latvia are yet compliant. It also unclear to what extent Greece and Italy have implemented relatively recent legislation to establish DNA databases.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 9 February 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:

	Please also see the 2014 journal article [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090536X14000239 Forensic DNA databases: Ethical and legal standards: A global review].		Please also see the 2014 journal article [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090536X14000239 Forensic DNA databases: Ethical and legal standards: A global review].
		+
		+	Sixty four countries have operational forensic DNA databases: Austria, Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Korea (Rep. of), Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Lebanon, Macedonia (FYR), Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan.
		+
		+	The largest DNA databases are in China, the USA and the United Kingdom.
		+

	'''Southern Africa'''		'''Southern Africa'''

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 DNA databases in [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=Europe Europe] vary widely in size and in the requirements of the legislation adopted.
-In 2008, in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom (known as the Marper case), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the indefinite retention of innocent peoples DNA samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints in England, Wales and Northern Ireland contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement applies in all 47 member countries of the Council of Europe.
+In 2008, in the case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom (known as the Marper case), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints in England, Wales and Northern Ireland contravened the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement applies in all 47 member countries of the Council of Europe.
 The [http://wiki.dnapolicyinitiative.org/index.php?title=United_Kingdom UK] database was the first to be established (in 1995) and is the third largest in the world (after China and the USA), containing a higher proportion of the population than any other country's database. Indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA profiles (introduced in England and Wales in 2001, but not in Scotland) became highly controversial. New legislation was introduced in 2012 to remove innocent people's and some children's records in order to comply with human rights law (the Marper judgment). In 2013, more than 1.7 million DNA profiles were removed from the database and more than 7.75 million stored DNA samples were destroyed. However, some controversy has continued regarding the collection of DNA routinely on arrest, especially from children, retrospective sampling of convicted persons, and retention of data from persons convicted or cautioned for minor offences. In 2011-12 an innocent man spent 5 months in prison in England accused of rape due to contamination of his DNA in a forensic laboratory.