By Masarrah binti Muhammad
Abstract
DNA evidence has emerged as possibly the most potent tool in modern-day investigations, allowing law enforcers to solve crimes with greater precision and credibility. Its accelerating use, nevertheless, introduces heinous concerns related to the limits of consent, privacy, and human rights. Compelling or clandestine extraction of DNA samples undermines the moral boundaries of justice. The practice blurs the line between protecting society and encroaching on individual liberty. In addition to concerns of consent, storage and potential misuse of genetic data also expose individuals to threats of privacy. In other situations, illegally collected evidence has been used in court, and issues on fairness and rule of law have arisen. These challenges imply that while DNA evidence strengthens the justice system, it also requires more accountability and respect for the rights of individuals
Introduction
The use of DNA as evidence has revolutionized criminal investigation across the world. Its precision in suspect identification and linking them to crime scenes has made it one of the most credible sources of evidence used in modern law enforcement. But under its precision is a darker controversy surrounding privacy, consent, and the limits of ethical state power. Questions continue to be posed regarding whether justice can actually be dispensed when personal genetic data are collected through coercion or not from theproper consent. The concerns are most acute in Malaysia, where the superimposition of civil and Syariah courts complicates regulation of such conduct. In probing these issues, the journal article “DNA evidence in the criminal justice system and privacy rights” explores the law and ethics of forced DNA collection, human rights, and the admissibility of illegally gathered evidence during trials. Three main ideas have been gathered for the sake of discussing this topic.
Forced DNA collection and Jurisdictional Concerns
The first main idea of the journal article tells about the collection of DNA data through force by law enforcers. It is important to note that the procedure stated is only implemented in a civil court, but the same procedure in section 12 and 13(7) of the DNA Act, is not applied in syariah court. If the provisions are also applicable in a syariah court, then several legal issues may arise like the issue of jurisdiction. This is because the Syariah Courts in Malaysia have a limited jurisdiction and no authority over matters under Federal Law. In contrast, the procedures for obtaining evidence through DNA or other bodily samples in civil matters are further supported by the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), which outlines investigative powers and safeguards for accused individuals. Many other countries are taking a stance in amending the power acts given to higher authority. The article mentions the insight and perspective of ECHR and Supreme Court of United States on the lack of full consent in collection of samples. Another perspective is in New South Wales and Queensland where the DNA collection laws focusing on the consent issues especially concerning children and impaired individuals. The law requires individuals who are arrested or imprisoned to provide DNA samples through mouth swabs. Proper procedures and training are addressedfor the collection and storage of samples. Most countries still take samples, but at least security is provided for individuals. There is no doubt that the amendment of the law provides better security and ensures that the justice system gives a fair advantage for all parties involved.
Human Rights and the Ethics of DNA retention
The second main idea is the exposure of how the use ofForensic DNA Databank Malaysia (FFDM) is a major human rights concern despite it being beneficial for forensic purposes. It shows insight by mentioning how the retention of DNA is within the dangers to privacy. The basis from external authorities also gives the argument weight, indicating that the matters are recognized globally. Addressing uninformed consent and the moral violations involved in DNA collection, it shows how easily rights can be undermined even under legal frameworks. Although DNA is often the key in solving crimes, coerced DNA collection still undermines the principle of informed consent. Additionally, authorities could misuse this power, leading to potential wrongful accusations. This argument was reinforced in a related study, the forced collection of DNA samples can be seen as a violation of individual autonomy and privacy, yet the DNA Act permitssuch actions, thereby weakening these fundamental rights (Hamid, 2022).
Illegally Obtained Evidence and Fairness in Court
The last main idea addresses the evidence that were obtained illegally that were used in courts. The topic of illegally acquired evidence is relevant in human rights discussion. Relying on past cases such as Benjamin William Hawkes v Public Prosecutor and Hanafi bin Mat Hassan v Public Prosecutor makes the argument solid as it depends on real judicial rulings. The idea also helps acknowledge that DNA evidence is not always a fair approach in presenting evidence and for it to be linked with other forms of evidence. This similar issue was raised in a separate journal article noted by Lincoln (2001, p. 5), “DNA evidence can only tell us that a person was at a crime scene, it cannot ‘prove’ that the person committed that crime, for it is unable to reconstruct the crime event for us.” Lastly, the journal criticises on how Malaysian courts deal with illegally gained evidence, upholding the significance of the argument in legal and ethical contexts, relating to the main purposes of the journal which states on the relevancy of illegally obtained evidence that is used in court.
Conclusion
The discussion surrounding DNA collection shows that justice and human rights must always move hand in hand. While DNA evidence is undeniably valuable in solving crimes, its use must not come at the expense of consent, privacy, and fairness. As laws continue to evolve, ensuring accountability and ethical practice in evidence collection remains essential to protect both the integrity of the justice system and the rights of individuals. The journal article provides exploration of the legal and ethical concern surrounding DNA data collection and utilization in Malaysia. It identifies the shortcomings of the Syariah court jurisdiction over handling DNA procedures, highlights international concerns regarding consent, and considers the potential for abuse of power. It also mentions the significance of informed consent and the need for strict protection in order to ensure protection of individual rights while noting the importance of balanced approaches, respecting both the pursuit of justice and fundamental human rights. Overall, the article is mostly in favour of legal reformsin accordance with international human rights standards and maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. Some suggestions for improvement are to acknowledge the forensic benefits more since it leans heavily toward criticism. The article could also improve by elaborating on the practical implications of Syariah courts’ limited jurisdiction over DNA collection.