‘Clearly Necessary’, ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Engrossing’? Mass Observation Correspondents Discuss Forensic Technologies

Abstract

This article explores the perspectives of Mass Observation (MO) correspondents on crime investigation and application of forensic technologies in police work. Using the Panel's replies to two distinct, independently commissioned Directives (the 2006 Spring Directive, Part 1 ‘Genes, Genetics and Cloning’ and the 2011 Autumn/Winter Directive, Part 1, ‘Crime and Investigation’), the article examines the meanings and place correspondents give to genetics and forensic science in everyday life and in relation to crime and investigation, surveillance and law and order. The analysis surveys MO correspondents’ understandings of the relationship between forensic technologies and policing and identifies the ways in which correspondents interpret, engage with and discuss their writing tasks. It is argued that MO data offer significant insights into how individuals select and appropriate information on different topics and incorporate this knowledge into distinct worldviews. These accounts constitute a rich, yet under-explored resource for (1) documenting the range of resources that inform the ‘forensic imaginary’ on which correspondents draw in explaining their fascination with or disinterest in criminal investigation and (2) conceptualising the ways in which distinct publics reflect on representations of crime. While the analysis highlights the benefits and limitations of a Mass Observation approach to documenting collective views on the role of forensic technologies in crime investigation, the conclusion reflects more broadly on both the contribution such an approach could make to the literature on public understandings of science and the uses and potential of MO data for social science researchers.

Voluntary Participation in Forensic DNA Databases

“…And I don't think we should allow things to get to that point! Similar results were obtained in studies conducted in the United Kingdom (Wilson-Kovacs 2014;Wilson-Kovacs, Wyatt, and Hauskeller 2012), showing that the public emphasized the value of forensic DNA databases in protecting society from crime while also expressing concerns about improper access to data or excitement about the potential of DNA and recognition of its benefits in police work together with a more critical attitude toward the idea of a wider national DNA database.…”

“…A key element of biological citizenship in reference to volunteering to donate a genetic profile for inclusion in the national forensic DNA database is the coexistence of elements that may provoke discordance or generate new syncretic forms between views about genetic knowledge and control of individuals and populations and views about the rights and duties of citizens. The public's perspectives about the relations between the genetic information held by the state and citizenship are based not only on the ethical issues traditionally cited in relation to forensic genetic technologies-such as concerns about privacy, access, and other risks to civil liberties-but also on broader cultural and emotional elements (Lee, Scheufele, and Lewenstein 2005)-such as altruism, (dis)trust, and stigma-which coexist with social representations of what is beneficial and harmful to individuals and to society (Machado and Silva 2014;Wilson-Kovacs 2014). These views engage in a dynamic way concerns about self-care and the collective well-being of society (Lemke 2011;Rose and Novas 2005), and the perceived risks and benefits of the surveillance technologies that pervade everyday life (Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer 2010).…”

“…A deeper understanding of how the simultaneous empowering and disempowering effects are interwoven into the public's understanding of forensic DNA databases is required, based on an approach that involves all citizens, particularly given that citizens sometimes see this kind of surveillance as potentially extending, rather than restricting, their civil rights and citizenship in broader terms (Machado and Silva 2014;Prainsack and Toom 2010;Wilson-Kovacs, Wyatt, and Hauskeller 2012;Wilson-Kovacs 2014). In fact, the public's understanding of forensic DNA databases remains undertheorized and empirical studies are still rare.…”

What influences public views on forensic DNA testing in the criminal field? A scoping review of quantitative evidence

“…Qualitative studies about public attitudes also showed that forensic DNA testing was seen as the least problematic of genetic applications. Results indicated that while acknowledging human rights issues, the participants tended to prioritize the well-being of society over the risks of a society under excessive surveillance [11, 56, 58–60]. The public’s enthusiasm for forensic DNA testing can be explained by the influence of messages from the media emphasizing the “infallible capacity” of DNA testing to catch criminals [61, 62].…”

“…The equivocal nature of the influence of variables related to socioeconomic position on public views on forensic DNA testing in the criminal field shows the complexity and dynamic nature of the social representations of what is beneficial and harmful to individuals and society, and how the state-citizen relationship is perceived [55, 60]. Public attitudes towards criminal DNA databases are also embedded in broader cultural and emotional elements that pervade everyday life [58].…”