National DNA Database. Is It Time?
Discussion
Sorry if a repost but following on yesterday's and today's high profile murder cases, in which convictions were mostly on dna evidence, is it time we had a everyone's dna on the database. In Steve Wright's case he was convicted 'cos of his arrest 7 years ago for theft and dna samples stored. In the case of the sally anne bowman, the suspect had previous sex offences but no dna in the police database and it took 9 months for him to be identified as a suspect. These are only 2 cases but I'm sure there are plenty of cases that have solely relied on dna for the perps to be convicted.The police already hold vast database of dna samples and i think it's only natural to have everyone's.
simba1 said:
Sorry if a repost but following on yesterday's and today's high profile murder cases, in which convictions were mostly on dna evidence, is it time we had a everyone's dna on the database. In Steve Wright's case he was convicted 'cos of his arrest 7 years ago for theft and dna samples stored. In the case of the sally anne bowman, the suspect had previous sex offences but no dna in the police database and it took 9 months for him to be identified as a suspect. These are only 2 cases but I'm sure there are plenty of cases that have solely relied on dna for the perps to be convicted.The police already hold vast database of dna samples and i think it's only natural to have everyone's.
Clearly you are not a scientist. You hold some pretty right wing views supported by a simplistic faith in technology and those who weild itNo, it's not time.
As DNA technology progresses we can look forward to people like Steve Wright seemingly convicted on DNA evidence being freed on appeal - of this I have no doubt. Give it 15 years?
And people being found guilty on DNA evidence in 2023 will be released on appeal in another 15, 20, 25 years etc etc...
Peoples' faith in DNA is touching - but not only is the technology at an early stage it's also wide open to abuse by any power-that-be that chooses to.
An example - the police think you are their 'man' for a serious crime, you are under arrest, they search your house and remove a jumper that then gets taken to the crime scene and shaken then returned to your house... Your DNA is then at the scene, ergo you are guilty.
Or someone with similar DNA to yours (and that's not hard to find, seeing as only a fraction of our DNA makes us human and not monkeys or pigs for example) committed the crime but the authorities have your DNA... Bit of sloppy prosecution evidence saying that the DNA is yours and you're in the clink.
Paranoid? In the context of target-based policing (and this is a reflection on government, not the police), I don't think so.
As DNA technology progresses we can look forward to people like Steve Wright seemingly convicted on DNA evidence being freed on appeal - of this I have no doubt. Give it 15 years?
And people being found guilty on DNA evidence in 2023 will be released on appeal in another 15, 20, 25 years etc etc...
Peoples' faith in DNA is touching - but not only is the technology at an early stage it's also wide open to abuse by any power-that-be that chooses to.
An example - the police think you are their 'man' for a serious crime, you are under arrest, they search your house and remove a jumper that then gets taken to the crime scene and shaken then returned to your house... Your DNA is then at the scene, ergo you are guilty.
Or someone with similar DNA to yours (and that's not hard to find, seeing as only a fraction of our DNA makes us human and not monkeys or pigs for example) committed the crime but the authorities have your DNA... Bit of sloppy prosecution evidence saying that the DNA is yours and you're in the clink.
Paranoid? In the context of target-based policing (and this is a reflection on government, not the police), I don't think so.
grumbledoak said:
With respect, the OP is a dumbo. 
No cases ever rely solely on DNA evidence; that would be frightening. If they enter all of us, even 99.999% accuracy will have you matching 60,000 people, any one of whom may have committed a crime, yet the DNA test 'proves' you did it.
Ok , sorry about that but it seems that evidence of matching dna in combination with all the extras will surely end in conviction, thus freeing up of more police time. Citing the case of sally anne bowman if they had the murderer's dna he would have been identified within a week and most likely convicted in a few more months. No cases ever rely solely on DNA evidence; that would be frightening. If they enter all of us, even 99.999% accuracy will have you matching 60,000 people, any one of whom may have committed a crime, yet the DNA test 'proves' you did it.
simba1 said:
grumbledoak said:
With respect, the OP is a dumbo.
No cases ever rely solely on DNA evidence; that would be frightening. If they enter all of us, even 99.999% accuracy will have you matching 60,000 people, any one of whom may have committed a crime, yet the DNA test 'proves' you did it.
Ok , sorry about that but it seems that evidence of matching dna in combination with all the extras will surely end in conviction, thus freeing up of more police time. Citing the case of sally anne bowman if they had the murderer's dna he would have been identified within a week and most likely convicted in a few more months. No cases ever rely solely on DNA evidence; that would be frightening. If they enter all of us, even 99.999% accuracy will have you matching 60,000 people, any one of whom may have committed a crime, yet the DNA test 'proves' you did it.
It people like you that have led us to have more surveillance cameras per capita than any other country on earth.
No change in the outcome, though. A better example might have been with Steve Wright, where catching him earlier might have prevented some deaths...
But your blind faith in this "panacea", though probably shared by many, is badly misplaced. There are many, many flaws in creating or relying on this database. And that is before you consider the aspect of treating you as guilty until proven innocent (and, frankly, like cattle).
The only people who would benefit from the database will be the Big Pharma companies. The government already know the value of your personal information, and they flog it off fairly freely to raise revenue, e.g. the electoral roll flogged to junk mail advertisers. Something similar would happen with your DNA info, and you have no idea what they would do with it...
Seriously, the list of 'cons' is far longer than the 'pros'; many of the 'cons' being some form of abusing the system/information/you.
But your blind faith in this "panacea", though probably shared by many, is badly misplaced. There are many, many flaws in creating or relying on this database. And that is before you consider the aspect of treating you as guilty until proven innocent (and, frankly, like cattle).
The only people who would benefit from the database will be the Big Pharma companies. The government already know the value of your personal information, and they flog it off fairly freely to raise revenue, e.g. the electoral roll flogged to junk mail advertisers. Something similar would happen with your DNA info, and you have no idea what they would do with it...
Seriously, the list of 'cons' is far longer than the 'pros'; many of the 'cons' being some form of abusing the system/information/you.
So you ALL forget the rape case a week or so ago, where the victim stated the rapist was a Black man, and so a white man was arrested and charged with the crime on DNA evidence, and the braindead still say" WE dont go on DNA alone" we take other things into account.Its Black n White-RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!
simba1 said:
Sorry if a repost but following on yesterday's and today's high profile murder cases, in which convictions were mostly on dna evidence, is it time we had a everyone's dna on the database. In Steve Wright's case he was convicted 'cos of his arrest 7 years ago for theft and dna samples stored. In the case of the sally anne bowman, the suspect had previous sex offences but no dna in the police database and it took 9 months for him to be identified as a suspect. These are only 2 cases but I'm sure there are plenty of cases that have solely relied on dna for the perps to be convicted.The police already hold vast database of dna samples and i think it's only natural to have everyone's.
You won't get much support for a universal database here. Obviously it paints a powerful picture here as the Bowman murder would not been solved without DNA. This flaw in the system of pre-database offenders not having their DNA taken will be eradicated with time. I personally don't think it should be universal, nor do I think it ever will be. The unusual middle ground where we're at at the moment where non-convicted people have theirs kept is fine with me. It has resulted in many more convictions that wouldn't otherwise have occurred.
Just a comment on the case, what a sick f
ker to put that family through a not-guilty plea with the defence he used. He can think about that one for the next 35 years. simba1 said:
The police already hold vast database of dna samples and i think it's only natural to have everyone's.
What a load of old cock-rot. Would you like us all to have chips installed so they can track us 24/7 "just in case" we do something wrong too?Do you seriously trust ANY Govt dept with the ultimate in personal details after recent events (lost discs & laptops) or would you like to see a Private Co run the Database so they can sell off the info to the highest bidder?.
Edited by MonkeyHanger on Saturday 23 February 18:25
No, not now, not ever...... fluffnik said:
To remove all unconvicted persons from it?
Hell yes! Well overdue.
And a lot of convicted persons to IMHO. In cases of burglary / murder / rape, perhaps there's a benefit to holding a person's DNA - but what "use" is the DNA of somebody arrested for fraud? Dangerous driving? etc etc It's a piss-take - and makes a mockery of any liberties we once thought we had.Hell yes! Well overdue.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff