DNA Veri Bankaları Karşısında Ceza Muhakemesinde Maddi Gerçeğe Ulaşılması ile Genoma Dayanan Özel Yaşamın Korunması Arasındaki Dengenin Sağlanması
Rahime ErbaşDNA veri bankalarının ceza muhakemesinde suçların aydınlatılmasında-maddi gereceğe ulaşılmasında- önemli işlevleri bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle birçok ülkede DNA veri bankasının oluşturulması yaygınlaşmakta; mevcut olan ülkelerde de veri bankalarının hacmi her geçen gün büyümektedir. Fakat gerçekten ceza muhakemesinde maddi gerçeğe ulaşılması için DNA veri bankaları olmazsa olmaz nitelikte midir? Bu bağlamda çalışmada ilk olarak dünyada bu amaçla hangi yaygınlıkta DNA veri bankalarının kurulduğu ve bu bankaların ne ölçüde bilgi içerdiğine yer verilecektir. İşte bu noktada bu çalışmanın özünü oluşturan temel soru ortaya çıkmaktadır: devletin suçların aydınlatılmasındaki menfaati ile bireylerin DNA’larından kaynaklanan kişisel verileri bağlamında özel yaşam hakkı arasında denge nasıl sağlanacaktır? Bu dengenin sağlanması için DNA veri bankasına verilerin girmesi, burada tutulması ve buradan silinmesi şeklindeki üç temel çıkış noktası önemli rol oynamaktadır. Daha somut ifadesiyle, örneğin insan öldürme, cinsel saldırı veya yağma suçlarını gibi veya bir yıl ve daha fazla hapis cezası gerektiren suçları işleyenlerin DNA verilerine bu bankalarda yer verilmesi şeklinde sınırlamalar getirilmesi gösterilebilir. Yahut ta bir kere veri bankasına girmiş DNA verisinin bu bankadan çıkarılması, silinmesi gibi bir imkânın mevcut olup olmadığı önem arz etmektedir. Bu çalışmada devletin suçları aydınlatmadaki menfaati ile bireylerin özel yaşamı korunması hakkı arasındaki denge, karşılaştırmalı hukuka bakmak suretiyle DNA veri bankasına verilerin girmesi, burada tutulması ve buradan silinmesi şeklindeki üç tutamak noktasından hareket edilerek ortaya konulmaya çalışılacaktır.
The Tension between Genome Privacy and Criminal Justice in the Wake of DNA Databases
Rahime ErbaşUsing DNA databases has a significant role in finding truths in criminal law; therefore, national DNA databases are becoming common worldwide. Consequently, their size is increasing every year. However, do we actually need a DNA database for the sake of criminal justice? Within this context, this study first demonstrates how common it is to create DNA databases today and how much information is retained in these databases. Then, the key question emerges: how do we find the balance between the competing interests of ensuring the right to privacy while facilitating the state’s interest in solving crimes? This is where the main implementation criteria for data entry, storage and destruction become significant. More concretely, we examine the criteria that should be adopted around whether DNA samples for particular criminals should be included. For example, should DNA samples be included in the case of serious crimes, e.g., crimes against life, sexual abuse, and robbery, as well as crimes requiring punishment of more than a certain time period, such as more than one year? Further, is it possible to remove DNA information from the database? This study is based on the proposal that these criteria play a significant role in softening the tension between breaching privacy and the State’s interest in fighting and solving crimes. This study will focus on these criteria, summarized as data entry, storage and destruction by considering comparative law including the EU, the ECHR and the USA analysis.
National DNA databases are becoming common throughout the world. Consequently, their size and volume are expeditiously increasing each year. However, do we actually need a DNA database for the sake of criminal justice? Within this context, this study first shows how common it is to create DNA databases in the world today and how much information is retained in these databases. Then, the key question emerges: how do we find the balance between the competing interests of ensuring the right to privacy while facilitating the State’s interest in solving crimes? This is where the main implementation criteria for data entry, storage and destruction become significant. More concretely, we examine the criteria that should be adopted around whether DNA samples for particular criminals should be included. For example, should DNA samples be included in the case of serious crimes, e.g., crimes against life, sexual abuse, and robbery, as well as crimes requiring punishment of more than a certain time period, such as more than one year? Further, is it possible to remove DNA information from the database? This study is based on the proposal that these criteria play a significant role in easing the tension between breaching privacy and the state’s interest in fighting and solving crimes. This study will focus on these criteria, summarized as data entry, storage, and destruction. This study indicates that collecting DNA evidence in databases is useful for the criminal justice system in fighting and solving crimes. However, concerns arise, especially around privacy. Each criterion related to data entry, storage, and destruction of DNA samples plays a significant role in mitigating the tension between privacy concerns and the state’s interest in fighting and solving crime. As a matter of fact, these criteria ensure the principle of proportionality. However, the current tendency to create databases and expand the existing ones is developing in confusion and mess, which in turn renders cooperation among countries difficult. Within this context, it was highly unexpected that this study would find this outcome: EU member countries prefer to keep their own national criminal law procedural understanding in the application of the criteria private, even when the EU demands unity, such as through the introduction of the Prüm Convention of 2005. This outcome forces us to confront the issue of whether breaching genome privacy for the sake of the criminal justice system is ultimately justified is indeed still under question.
