DNA the Nor-way: black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the key

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511778193.011

10 - DNA the Nor-way: black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the key

from Section 2 - National contexts of forensic DNA technologies and key issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 October 2012

Johanne Yttri Dahl

Edited by

Richard Hindmarsh and

Barbara Prainsack

Show author details

Richard Hindmarsh: Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Barbara Prainsack: Affiliation:
King's College London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In July 2004, the Norwegian Government appointed the so-called Strandbakken Committee to consider changes in the laws regarding the forensic DNA database, which had become operational in 1999. In late 2005, exactly 10 years after it was first decided to establish a forensic DNA database in Norway, the committee submitted a White Paper to Parliament (Ministry of Justice and the Police 2005: 19). While the White Paper supported a substantial expansion of Norway's forensic DNA database, it also raised a number of issues about the use of DNA databases in criminal law administration. Approximately 35 stakeholders including government offices, other institutions and non-government organisation commented on the White Paper. These comments were collated in a proposition to the Odelsting (Odelstingsproposisjoner 19) (Ministry of Justice and the Police 2006), which served as an advisory document to Parliament.

Two years after the publication of the White Paper, in December 2007, the Norwegian Parliament ruled to expand the forensic DNA database and appropriated 64 million kroner (approximately €7 million) to finance this ‘DNA revolution’. According to Knut Storberget (2007), the Norwegian Minister of Justice, DNA analysis was an important tool in the battle against criminality, outperforming other forensic methods in efficiency and reliability by helping to free up police resources and raise detection rates for a variety of crimes, ranging from volume crime, serious crime and organised crime to national and international crime, which would lead to increased levels of security.

Type: Chapter
Information: Genetic Suspects
Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing
, pp. 197 - 217

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778193.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berger, M. (2004). Lessons from DNA: restricting the balance between finality and justice. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. Lazer, D.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–132.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Chaffey, P. and Walford, R. (1997). Norsk-engelsk juridisk ordbok. [Norwegian–English Legal Dictionary.] Oslo: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar

Cole, S. A. (2001). Suspect Identities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cole, S. A. (2004). Fingerprint identification and the criminal justice system. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. Lazer, D.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 63–91.Google Scholar

Cole, S. A. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Science and Public Policy, 34, 95–107.CrossRef Google Scholar

,Commission for Forensic Medicine (2009).Den Rettsmedisinske kommisjons årsmelding 2007–2008. [Forensic Commission Annual Report] Oslo: Norwegian Civil Affairs Authoritywww.justissekretariatene.no/nb/Innhold/DRK/Arsmeldinger-og-veiledere/ (accessed 29 May 2009).Google Scholar

Dahl, J. Y. (2009). Another side of the story: lawyers' views on DNA as evidence. In Technologies of Insecurity. The Surveillance of Everyday Life, eds. Aas, K., Gundhus, H. and Lomell, H.. London: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 219–237.Google Scholar

Dahl, J. Y. and Sætnan, A. (2009). ‘It all happened so slowly’: on controlling function creep in DNA databases. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 37, 83–103.CrossRef Google Scholar

Diesen, C. and Björkman, J. (2003). DNA-bevis är inte alltid starka. [DNA evidence is not always strong.]Juridisk Tidsskrift, 4, 890–904.Google Scholar

,Director General of Public Prosecution (2008). Ra 07–569 KHK/jaa 624.7 (Letter 15 August 2008): Nye retningslinjer for registrering i DNA-registeret og innsamling av spor med DNA-analyse mv. [Ra 07–569 KHK/jaa 624.7 (Letter of 15 August 2008): New Regulations for Registration in the DNA Register and Collection of Traces for DNA Analysis etc.] Oslo: Norwegian Prosecuting Authoritywww.riksadvokaten.no/ra/ra.php?artikkelid=194 (accessed 16 October 2008).Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In The Foucault Effect, eds. Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–105.Google Scholar

Gerlach, N. (2004). The Genetic Imaginary: DNA in the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Giddens, A. (1997). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Jasanoff, S. (2006). Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 328–341.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Johnsen, J. (2007). Feilkilder ved ekspertbevis. Hvordan kan de påvirke utfallet av straffesaker? [Sources of error in expert evidence. How it may affect the outcome of criminal cases.] In Rettsmedisinsk sakkyndighet i fortid, nåtid og fremtid [Forensic Medicine in the Past, Present and Future] eds. Brandtzæg, P. and Eskeland, S.. Oslo: Cappelen, pp. 16–25.Google Scholar

Kvale, S. (2006). Det kvalitative forskningsintervju. [The Qualitative Research Interview.]Oslo: Gyldendal Akademiske.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Listhaug, O. (2005). Oil wealth dissatisfaction and political trust in Norway: a resource curse?West European Politics, 28, 834–851.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2006). Circumscribing expertise: membership categories in courtroom testimony. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, ed. Jasanoff, S.. New York: Routledge, pp. 161–181.Google Scholar

McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar

,Ministry of Justice and the Police (2005).: Lov om DNA-register til bruk i strafferettspleien. [Law about DNA Database for Use in Criminal Law Administration.]Oslo: Ministry of Justice and the Police.Google Scholar

,Ministry of Justice and the Police (2006).Odelstingsproposisjoner 19 (2006–2007): Om lov om endringer i straffeprosessloven (utvidelse av DNA-registeret). [Proposition to the Odelsting 19: About Changes of Laws in Criminal Procedure (Expansion of the DNA Database).]Oslo: Ministry of Justice and the Police.Google Scholar

Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science, Science, 309, 892–895.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Storberget, K. (2007). Vi skal oppklare mer. [We are going to detect more.] Østlendingen [Norwegian Newspaper].

Thompson, W. (2006). Tarnish on the ‘gold standard’: understanding recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion, 10, 14–20.Google Scholar

Thompson, W., Taroni, F. and Aitken, C. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 47–54.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed