|
James Debono
The Police are considering the setting up of a national DNA database of convicted criminals, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs told MaltaToday. A internationally accredited private laboratory, Synergene Biotechnology, already possesses the technology necessary for setting up this database.
But a final decision on whether Malta would have its national DNA database will be taken “when financial considerations are deemed favourable,” the spokesperson said.
Genetic fingerprinting is being used by police throughout the world, to match suspects to samples of blood, hair, saliva or semen taken from the crime scene. Even in Malta, this technology has been sporadically used in the law courts to determine whether DNA samples on a crime scene correspond to those taken from the accused.
This technology had led to the exoneration of rape suspect Jamal Badawi who was arraigned by the police in court after being wrongly identified by the victim in 2003.
But unlike countries like the United Kingdom, Malta lacks a national database in which DNA profiles of convicted criminals are kept.
Working on the assumption that most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, police in the United Kingdom keep an extensive database containing 2.5 million different profiles of convicted criminals.
In this way criminal investigators can compare DNA samples taken from any crime scene with the profiles of people convicted of crimes in the past. But this has prompted the concern of civil liberties groups who say the state will have orwellian powers to monitor the lives of its citizens.
In Malta, the police are still considering the technologies necessary for setting up the database in a way “that will reflect a common European perspective on the matter.”
The police are also conducting studies on the reliability of this technology. A major consideration of the authorities is ensuring that the setting up of such a database would conform to existing data protection laws.
The office of the Data Protection Commission has told MaltaToday that the compilation of DNA profiles must conform to the Data Protection Act.
Jonathan Farrugia, a spokesperson for Synergene Technologies, told MaltaToday the setting up of such a database was discussed with Minister Tonio Borg and the Police Commissioner during meetings held in September.
Presently the Maltese police force relies on matching fingerprints left on the crime scene with those of potential criminals. Fingerprints of convicted criminals are kept on a fingerprint profiling system, called the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) which is regularly made use of in criminal investigations. The ministry claims that this system is yielding satisfactory results.
But Synergene spokesperson Jonathan Farrugia says that finger printing is not as efficient as DNA profiling. While fingerprinting depends on the criminal touching an object in the crime scene, DNA evidence can be extracted from items such as a licked envelope, tissue paper, toothbrushes, cigarette butts, used syringes, blood splatter, chewing gum, bites on foodstuff, and even fingernail scrapings.
Fingerprints came into use by detectives and police labs during the 1930s. But unlike a conventional fingerprint that occurs only on the fingertips and can be altered by surgery, a DNA fingerprint is the same for every cell, tissue, and organ of a person.
It cannot be altered by any known treatment. Consequently, DNA fingerprinting is rapidly becoming the primary method for identifying and distinguishing among individual human beings.
Yet DNA evidence is not always foolproof. There have been cases of criminals who planted fake DNA samples at crime scenes. In one notorious case, a criminal even planted fake DNA evidence in his own body: Dr. John Schneeberger of Canada raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew Schneeberger’s blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants. A hair sample taken five years later finally yielded the match.
But Synergene spokesperson Jonathan Farrugia says that the system is the most reliable one, since only identical twins have an exact genetic profile.
He also contends that DNA profiling would be beneficial to both defence and prosecution. “In the case of the prosecution DNA profiling helps in ascertaining guilt in the shortest time possible. But it would also help the defence in exonerating a wrongly convicted person,” says Farrugia.
Prisoners’ rights activist Mark Montebello concurs, saying that DNA can provide certain proof where formerly little or none existed. “This militates for and against the accused,” Montebello said. Referring to the Badawi case, Montebello said the accused had only been “saved and freed from serious accusations, moral certainty, and long years in prison, thanks to DNA evidence.”
Farrugia also suggests that this system can be effective in the fight against terrorism. According to Farrugia DNA profiling would be effective to apprehend terrorists who might infiltrate the country in boats carrying immigrants in distress. “If undocumented migrants visiting Malta are profiled, terrorists who match profiles in foreign databases will be caught,” says Farrugia.
But it is the compulsory profiling of individuals which raises the concerns of civil liberty organisation. The wide-ranging powers given to police in the UK to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal, has been criticised. Mark Montebello insists that DNA profiling must have the free consent of the person involved.
“Giving or not giving the samples must never be used as a proof of innocence or guilt. I think this is the principle to uphold in every case lest the compilation be another weapon against the weak and ill-provided.”
jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt
|
