Options
DNA Database In The News Again.....
Madridista23
Posts: 9,422 Forum Member
✭
There has been more calls for people who have never been charged with any offence to have their DNA profiles deleted and removed from the database.
It is a good idea to keep peoples DNA profile on record or is it just another tentacle of this government's obsession of Pigeon-Holing the general public for fear they might miss something?
Personally speaking as someone who is not on the Database, and in the words of Catherine Tate, It's a f**king liberty. :cool:
It is a good idea to keep peoples DNA profile on record or is it just another tentacle of this government's obsession of Pigeon-Holing the general public for fear they might miss something?
Personally speaking as someone who is not on the Database, and in the words of Catherine Tate, It's a f**king liberty. :cool:
0
Comments
Hello,
Would you care to explain your reasoning?
I was under the impression DNA was only taken if somebody was charged with a crime. Therefore, if you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about.
The problem is even when subsequently acquitted the DNA stays on the database.
If we are to have a national database then lets have the debate and get everyone on. My main objection to that is the expense - since most crimes are committed by serial criminals surely it makes sense to only hold convicts DNA?
I would argue it saves time and money. People in this country believe the Government is attempting some sort of brain-washing program. DNA is kept safely stored away and doesn't see daylight again unless required. People complain about their DNA being held or being asked to have I.D. cards, but everyday we pay for goods with credit/debit cards. The receipts on these have enough information on them to do damage to somebody. Passports have plenty of information stored in them, our driver's license is another example of data being held, which if required the Governement could play there little game of Big Brother. I would much rather live in the society that we do today, than the one this country had 100 years ago. Back then it was called progress.
Your DNA (or perhaps just the analysed profile - I'm not sure) is retained regardless of whether or not you are charged with (or subsequently convicted of) any offence.
I'm not sure what I think. It costs money (£60 IIRC) to process the samples in the first place, and they may assist in future criminal investigations (even if you are the victim!). On the other hand, it's clearly inconsistent to have a mixture of criminals and innocent people on the database.
Society needs to decide whether to allow the inconsistency to continue, or to adopt a universal database.
Hello AJ,
Yes but also for an arrestable offense where no charges are brought or they are dropped, your DNA can be taken and kept and it is this practice, along with many other people I find incompatible with a fair justice system.
As mentioned above, the law was changed a few years ago to allow it to be taken from anyone arrested.
I dont see a problem with it being retained afterwards, and a good number of crimes, including serious ones, have been detected as a result of such samples.
why not?
interested by the words 'should not'
Hello AJ,
I'm not sure if people think there is a brain washing program in place in this country, ( might not be such a bad thing for some ).
But lets take your example of credit cards/loyalty cards.
When loyalty cards were first introduced what wasn't explained, ( but known ), introduced by stealth so to speak, was the amount of data that would be held on your shopping habits, you were offered a carrot, many bit and were snared.
Now does it really matter if the big supermarkets know how much milk or bread you buy, probably not in reality but in principle it was wrong to collect information in this way without fully informing the citizens of this country.
It is your choice to have a passport, your choice to have a credit card and so on but if this government is to have it's way you will be given no choice but to have an ID card or to submit to your DNA being held.
It's about choice or the lack of it, why should a law abiding citizen have unnecessary information held on them.
Obviously passports, credit cards and DL aside where this information is required, far to much information is held and lost by organizations and this government on it's citizens, we are not a free people in that way any more.
Obviously DNA doesn't hold your personal details, that has to be matched to it.
If you are entirely innocent of a crime, subsequently charged and found innocent why should your DNA be kept on file?
It's a bit like the on going debacle about minor crimes being held for many years on people who have no longer committed a crime.
Surely a spent conviction for minor crimes should be just that and after say three/ five years, completely wiped and no requirement to reveal them or indeed hold them on a data base of any kind.
Ther are therefor two sensible options open to the powers that be.
1) Only store the DNA of convicted criminals or
2) Store the DNA of the whole population.
Given the level of oposition to the latter, not to mention the way the Forensic SCience Service screwed up in the Madelain McCann case, number two is not an option.
Therefore we should only store the DNA of convicted criminals.
I did read (admittedly on the Daily Wail site) that very few of these crimes solved were from people who had ended up on the database without being convicted.
So is it really cost effective to hold records of non convicted people?
What cretins :mad:
I'm still not sure if the physical samples are retained. That would be more costly, and would also allow for subsequent re-analysis, which is a more sinister possibility, because the DNA holds far more information than is included in a DNA "fingerprint" (which just looks at areas of "junk" DNA).
they just stood out, because it implies there was a reason more than just your opinion.
why the aggresive tone? sour milk on your cornflakes this morning?
lept out of the page like a magestic salmon
so come on then - why should they not be held then?
I'm undecided on this - find it an interesting debate - but all I hear is Big Brother state etc, civil liberties etc - but what is your actual problem with it.
I'll give you an example about one of mine - say i did something innocous- they then make a mistake and link me to a massive crime - that's pretty heavy 'evidence'
the other side of me thinks - well if you don't do anything wrong then what's the problem - and who knows maybe they can screen me for gentic health problems while they are at it!
But that is exactly how it is sold to us and, EDIT, as to why it is such a good idea to retain such details.
Not impossible I admit but it would be hard for you or for anyone to quote where a serious crime has been committed and resolved where DNA has been taken from an innocent person, never involved in crime, retained and that person goes on to commit a serious crime after-wards.
DNA profiling is a great tool, don't get me wrong but in it's self doesn't in most cases prove a person committed a particular crime.
Why do you see no problem with an entirely innocent person, guilty of no crime or the crime they are suspected of, to have their DNA retained?
They won't do that now, but suppose in the future some tentative link was established between particular forms of criminality and genetics. Would you want that disclosed on an enhanced CRB check? Would that be reasonable?
This is why I wondered (and still do) about the physical samples.
that is interesting - a bit GATTACA-esque!