No abstract

Using 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. Keywords: Genome, DNA, Databank, storage, privacy, crime, criminal procedure, Prüm Convention, the EU member countries, the USA, the ECHR, S and Marper vs. United Kingdom, Maryland vs. King ÖZ DNA 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 ar...

DNA evidence has increasingly become a widespread instrument in solving crime as well as crime prevention. As such, creation of DNA databases or expanding the existing ones have been on the rise in the world. On the one side, storing DNA profiles serves as a pivotal tool in crime solving, but on the other, privacy based on genome concerns occur. DNA databases appears as an example of biotechnology today and in the future that are argued in a spectrum ranging from utopia to dystopia. This methodical approach, of course, is nothing new or novel for a DNA database-related study. This study, however, aims to analyse the matter from the standpoint of criminal law and to discuss whether the modus operandi of criminal procedure on the use of DNA databases paves the way towards utopian or dystopian vision for future. As such, after introducing theme and indicating scope of the study (I), it provides an overview regarding the involvement of DNA as evidence and respectively database in criminal justice system in the world (II).  Whether databases established for criminal justice system serve for dystopian.

The harm that are occurred by active conduct may be also brought out by passive conduct, omission, of those who have legal duty to act. In some cases, these two forms of conduct exist simultaneously. This is the case where a mother leaves her newborn to a secluded place and the baby dies or the physician shuts off the reanimator and the patient dies. Both mother and physician have a legal duty to act and both performed the active conduct as well. In such cases, two forms of conduct are come into being and lead to death. Consequently, the question on which form of conduct criminal liability should be based upon arises. That is to say, mother or physician should be punished due to the killing by commission or omission remains debatable. For such cases, various criteria have been applied by the case law and doctrine of German criminal law. In this study, these are put across by classifying as "reality" and "assessment" theories. The main approach of this study is not only relying on reality for the solution; but after the retaining of the reality, it is necessary to make an assessment, which refers to the interpretation of norms. Because, in such cases, both forms of conduct stand at an equal distance to the norms. Starting from this point of view, the uniformity of conduct, the coexistence of recklessness crimes with omission, the relationship of the previous and the next action with the preexisting dangerous behavior and the crime of abandonment are discussed. All of our analysis has shown that a single criterion to be developed cannot solve the cases in which both forms of conduct occur, and that the solution can be put forward according to the background of the case. Because, each of these cases contains various issues of the crime theory. Only these issues remain in the background when two forms of conduct as commission and omission appears in the natural sense.

No abstract