In this blog post, we will examine how effective scientific investigation using DNA databases is in preventing recidivism and protecting victims, and explore its potential and controversies.
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 or saliva could only reveal blood type, so investigations had to rely on other physical evidence and circumstantial evidence. These limitations led to wrongful convictions, such as innocent people being sentenced to death or the true culprits being acquitted. However, the development of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) technology in 1985 brought a revolutionary change to forensic science. Using PCR technology, even tiny amounts of DNA can be amplified in large quantities, enabling the extraction of unique genetic information specific to an individual, not just blood type. This allows for the more scientific and accurate identification and apprehension of criminals.
DNA analysis techniques were first used in criminal investigations in 1987 in the United States in a sexual assault case. Genetic information was obtained from collected evidence, and DNA was collected from all individuals within the area where the suspect was believed to have been active. This genetic information was then used to identify the individual whose genetic profile matched that of the suspect. While this method boasts a very high accuracy rate, the significant time burden of analyzing hundreds or thousands of DNA samples per case became a major issue. As a result, a system was introduced to collect and store genetic information from criminals in a database, particularly for serious crimes such as rape, robbery, and murder, which often involve serial incidents or high recidivism rates. In South Korea, DNA analysis investigation methods were first introduced in 1991, and in July 2010, related laws were passed by the National Assembly to establish a DNA database for criminals involved in violent crimes (murder, robbery, rape, sexual assault, sexual violence against minors, drug-related crimes, assault, arson, etc.).
When a crime occurs, the DNA collected from the suspect at the crime scene can be compared with the database to determine if there is a match. If the crime is a repeat offense, this system can shorten the investigation time and help identify the suspect more quickly. Many people support this system because it allows for faster and more efficient investigations by encoding DNA analysis data and storing it in a database.
Additionally, there is a growing call to expand this system to include other types of crimes, such as sexual offenses, property crimes, and other criminal offenses under the Criminal Code, with the aim of preventing repeat offenses and reducing the number of victims. However, despite these advantages, there is opposition to expanding the scope of DNA collection. The main arguments against this expansion are twofold: concerns about human rights violations and worries about the leakage or misuse of personal information. Human rights organizations argue that treating individuals who have served their sentences and been released as potential criminals and having their genetic information managed by the state constitutes a clear violation of human rights. They also claim that if the stored information is leaked to society and misused, it could lead to significant social problems. In fact, in 1994, the Ministry of Justice and other agencies attempted to introduce a DNA database for violent criminals, but the plan was abandoned due to opposition from civil society groups on the grounds of human rights violations.
However, it is important not to overlook the fact that innocent citizens are also potential victims exposed to crime 24 hours a day. While the importance of human rights must be equally applied to all, if crimes that could have been prevented due to the protection of ex-convicts’ human rights result in victims, the meaning of such protection inevitably diminishes. According to South Korea’s national statistics portal, in 2014, the recidivism rate for violent crimes among violent criminals was approximately 60% for heinous violent crimes such as murder and sexual assault, and approximately 43% for violent crimes such as assault, threats, and kidnapping. Other crimes, such as vice crimes, forgery crimes, and public official crimes, showed lower rates of approximately 45%, 26%, and 18%, respectively, compared to violent crimes. However, it is important to note that in all recidivism cases, recidivism in different categories was much higher than recidivism in the same category. In particular, in the case of violent crimes, the recidivism rate in different categories was seven times higher than that in the same category. This means that individuals with a criminal record for general criminal offenses are more likely to commit violent crimes in the future.
There are also many cases where the genetic information of violent criminals has greatly assisted investigations. In June 2016, the DNA of one of the suspects in a sexual assault case involving a female teacher on an island matched the DNA of a suspect in a 2007 sexual assault case involving a woman in her 20s in Daejeon, solving a case that had remained unsolved. Additionally, in a robbery case that occurred in February 2015, the DNA of the perpetrator matched that of a suspect in a similar rape case from six years prior, enabling the case to be solved. As such, the storage of criminals’ DNA has made it possible to apprehend perpetrators of violent crimes that had remained unsolved for years. If this system were applied to general criminal offenses, it could significantly aid in solving violent crimes with high rates of recidivism. For example, if DNA is collected and stored from a suspect arrested on gambling charges, and years later the same individual commits a sexual crime, the DNA collected from the crime scene can be easily matched with the stored DNA in the database to identify the perpetrator. Additionally, even in cases that are not violent crimes, such as fraud or theft, which have high recidivism rates, the investigative process can be streamlined, reducing both time and financial losses.
However, if DNA from all crimes is included in the database, issues such as information leaks or damage may arise during the management of the vast amount of information. Genetic information obtained through DNA analysis includes details about an individual’s personality, health status, potential diseases, and family genetic information. If this information is leaked into society, it could lead to serious social problems. Furthermore, if an individual’s genetic information is placed under state control for life due to a single mistake, and they are labeled as a criminal, this would constitute an excessive violation of human rights. Therefore, while expanding the scope of DNA collection for crime prevention and victim reduction is desirable, such expansion should be limited to crimes with high recidivism rates, high crime incidence, and the potential for significant harm. According to Statistics Korea data, the most common crimes under the Criminal Code in 2014 were traffic offenses (583,785 cases), fraud (320,715 cases), and theft (99,857 cases), with recidivism rates of approximately 32%, 26%, and 51%, respectively.
In particular, fraud and theft have high recidivism rates, so storing DNA information in a database would reduce time and financial losses during investigations when crimes are committed again. The genetic information stored in the database is used only as a basis for determining whether two individuals are the same, similar to fingerprint recognition, and is never used for further interpretation (such as personality or medical history) in criminal investigations.
Therefore, opposing the expansion of the scope of DNA collection on the grounds of privacy infringement lacks persuasive force. However, there are significant concerns about information leakage. To address this, the prosecution currently collects DNA information only with the individual’s consent and manages only the minimum information necessary to identify the same person, thereby preventing human rights violations and information leakage. The information used in investigations is only the DNA bands (arranged in a row from small to large fragments) obtained through electrophoresis of DNA, not the entire information stored in DNA. If only the DNA bands are encoded and stored as data, and all other information is discarded, even if information leakage occurs, the extent of privacy infringement would be limited.
Considering that no information leaks have occurred since the DNA bank was established in 2010, it is believed that the DNA bank would be safe as long as the amount of data it can handle is calculated and does not exceed that limit. Human rights organizations are protecting the human rights of criminals by emphasizing that “the human rights of criminals are also human rights.” However, it is difficult for victims to argue that their human rights are more important.
This is because all human rights are equal and cannot be ranked in terms of importance. However, as society evolves, criminal methods become more diverse, and considering the chain reactions and secondary damages that occur during the resolution of criminal cases, expanding the scope of DNA collection under strict control to ensure the safety of innocent citizens could help solve more criminal cases and reduce harm.
