Police epistemic culture and boundary work with judicial authorities and forensic scientists: the case of transnational DNA data exchange in the EU

References

• Bigo, Didier. 2006. “Globalized (in)Security: The Field and the Ban-Opticon.” In Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo, and Anastassia Tsoukala, 10–48. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bigo, Didier. 2008. “EU Police Cooperation: National Sovereignty Framed by European Security?” In Security Versus Justice? Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Union, edited by Elspeth Guild, and Florian Geyer, 91–108. Aldershot: Hampshire: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cole, Simon. 2013. “Forensic Culture as Epistemic Culture: The Sociology of Forensic Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1): 36–46. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.003
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cole, Simon, and Michael Lynch. 2006. “The Social and Legal Construction of Suspects.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2 (December): 39–60. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, Susana. 2017. “Visibilities, Invisibilities and Twilight Zones at the Crime Scene in Portugal.” New Genetics and Society 36 (4): 375–399. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2017.1394835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2006. Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on Simplifying the Exchange of Information and Intelligence between Law Enforcement Authorities of the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union. Accessed January 2, 2019. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32006F0960.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2008a. Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the Stepping up of Cross-Border Cooperation, Particularly in Combating Terrorism and Cross-Border Crime. Official Journal of the European Union. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0615&from=EN.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2008b. Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the Implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the Stepping up of Cross-Border Cooperation, Particularly in Combating Terrorism and Cross-Border Crime. Official Journal of the European Union. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:210:0012:0072: EN:PDF.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2017. Prüm/DNA Data Exchange Evaluation of United Kingdom (UK) (Brussels, 3 February 2017). Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jun/eu-council-prum-dp-questions-uk-5309-17.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2018a. Implementation of the Provisions on Information Exchange of the “Prüm Decisions” (Brussels, 26 November 2018). Accessed January 2, 2019. http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5077-2018-REV-5/en/pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Council of the European Union. 2018b. Clarification on DNA Concerns Raised at Previous DAPIX Meetings (Brussels, 12 April 2018). Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/apr/eu-council-dna-concerns-7772-Rev-1-18.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• ENFSI. 2016. “DNA-Database Management Review and Recommendations.” Accessed July 21, 2017. http://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/final_version_enfsi_2016_document_on_ dna-database_management_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Ericson, Richard V., and Clifford Shearing. 1986. “The Scientification of Police Work.” In The Knowledge Society, edited by Gernot Böhme, and Nico Stehr, 129–159. Dordrecht: D. Riedel.
   Google Scholar
• Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science From Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795. doi: 10.2307/2095325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, Torsten, Thomas Lemke, and Barbara Prainsack. 2012. “Risky Profiles: Societal Dimensions of Forensic Uses of DNA Profiling Technologies.” New Genetics and Society 31 (3): 249–258. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.687132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, Richard, and Barbara Prainsack. 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hufnagel, Saskia, and Carole McCartney. 2015. “Police Cooperation Against Transnational Criminals.” In Routledge Handbook of Transnational Criminal Law, edited by Neil Boister, and Robert J. Currie, 107–120. Oxon and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hufnagel, Saskia, and Carole McCartney. 2017. Trust in International Police and Justice Cooperation. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, Martin, Nigel Fielding, and Nina Cope. 2004. “‘The Appliance of Science?’: The Theory and Practice of Crime Intelligence Analysis.” British Journal of Criminology 45 (1): 39–57. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azh053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, Paul, and Robin Williams. 2007. “Internationalizing New Technologies of Crime Control: Forensic DNA Databasing and Datasharing in the European Union.” Policing & Society 17 (2): 103–118. doi: 10.1080/10439460701302669
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Paul, R. Williams, and Paul Martin. 2003. “Genetics and Forensics: Making the National DNA Database.” Science Studies 16 (2): 22–37.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA; London, UK: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kruse, Corinna. 2016. The Social Life of Forensic Evidence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, Michael. 2013. “Science, Truth, and Forensic Cultures: The Exceptional Legal Status of DNA Evidence.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1): 60–70. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.008
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lynch, Michael, Simon Cole, Ruth McNally, and Kathleen Jordan. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Machado, Helena, and Rafaela Granja. 2018. “Ethics in Transnational Forensic DNA Data Exchange in the EU: Constructing Boundaries and Managing Controversies.” Science as Culture 27 (3): 242–264. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2018.1425385
   Google Scholar
• Mayring, Philipp. 2004. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In A Companion to Qualitative Research, edited by Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke, 266–269. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McCartney, Carole. 2010. “Trans-national Exchange of Forensic (Bio)Information.” In Emerging Issues in International Forensic Bioinformation Exchange, edited by G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd, 1–27. University of Leeds, London, UK: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McCartney, Carole. 2014. “Transnational Exchange of Forensic Evidence.” In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, edited by Gerben Bruinsma, and David Weisburd, 5302–5313. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McCartney, Carole. 2017. “Trust and the International Exchange of Forensic Information.” In Trust in International Police and Justice Cooperation, edited by Saskia Hufnagel, and Carole McCartney, 169–189. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• McCartney, Carole, Tim Wilson, and Robin Williams. 2011. “Transnational Exchange of Forensic DNA: Viability, Legitimacy, and Acceptability.” European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 17 (4): 305–322. doi: 10.1007/s10610-011-9154-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M’charek, Amade, Rob Hagendijk, and Wiebe de Vries. 2013. “Equal Before the Law: On the Machinery of Sameness in Forensic DNA Practice.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 38 (4): 542–565. doi: 10.1177/0162243912453623
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perras, Chantal. 2017. “Transnational Policing and Its Contexts: Flexibility and (Dis)Trust.” In Trust in International Police and Justice Cooperation, edited by Saskia Hufnagel, and Carole McCartney, 221–240. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Prainsack, Barbara, and Victor Toom. 2010. “The Prüm Regime. Situated Dis/Empowerment in Transnational DNA Profile Exchange.” British Journal of Criminology 50 (6): 1117–1135. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prainsack, Barbara, and Victor Toom. 2013. “Performing the Union: The Prum Decision and the European Dream.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (1): 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.009
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Santos, Filipe. 2014. “Making Sense of the Story: The Dialogues Between the Police and Forensic Laboratories in the Construction of DNA Evidence.” New Genetics and Society 33 (2): 181–203. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2014.916186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, Filipe, and Helena Machado. 2017. “Patterns of Exchange of Forensic DNA Data in the European Union Through the Prüm System.” Science & Justice 57 (4): 307–313. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spapens, Toine. 2017. “Building Trust and More: The Importance of Police Cooperation Networks in the European Union.” In Trust in International Police and Justice Cooperation, edited by Saskia Hufnagel, and Carole McCartney, 149–168. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Sulca, Denise. 2017. “Intelligence-Led Use of International Forensic Exchange Channels.” In Trust in International Police and Justice Cooperation, edited by Saskia Hufnagel, and Carole McCartney, 241–254. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Taverne, Michelle, and A. P. A. Broeders. 2015. The Light’s at the End of the Funnel! Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Transnational Exchange of DNA Profiles Between the Netherlands and Other Prüm Countries. Zutphen: Paris Legal Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Taverne, M. D., and A. P. A. Broeders. 2017. “Cross-Border Patterns in DNA Matches between the Netherlands and Belgium.” Science and Justice 57 (1): 28–34. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.008.
   Google Scholar
• Toom, Victor. 2018. Cross-border Exchange and Comparison of Forensic DNA Data in the Context of the Prüm Decision. Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Brussels: Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)604971.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Beek, K. 2011. Forensic DNA Profiles Crossing Borders in Europe (Implementation of the Treaty of Prüm). The Hague: Netherlands Forensic Institute. Accessed July 21, 2017. https://worldwide.promega.com/resources/profiles-in-dna/2011/forensic-dna-profiles-crossing-borders-in-europe/.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, Robin, and Paul Johnson. 2008. Genetic Policing: The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, Tim. 2016. “Criminal Justice and Global Public Goods: The Prüm Forensic Biometric Cooperation Model.” The Journal of Criminal Law 80 (5): 303–326. doi: 10.1177/0022018316668450
   Google Scholar