Do crime investigators register their DNA
Discussion
This is a quote from Genewatch.
"The UK police now have more DNA samples than any other country. Over 5% of the UK's population is on the National DNA database compared to Austria, which has the 2nd largest proportion of the population on its police database at just over 1%. Although the assumption is that by holding the DNA profiles of more individuals on the database, more crimes will be solved, there is no evidence to support this. However, evidence of abuse of the information held on the police database is increasing, including its use for controversial genetic research without consent.
Since April 2004, the police in England and Wales have been able to take DNA samples without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence. Recordable offences include begging, being drunk and disorderly and taking part in an illegal demonstration. Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted. A massive expansion in the number of individuals on the Database has not led to any noticable increase in the likelihood of identifying a suspect. GeneWatch believes the current practices are wrong and has a number of concerns about the governance of the database.
In Scotland the law is different and DNA cannot be kept permanently from innocent people. However, DNA from people convicted of relatively minor offences such as Breach of the Peace can be kept for life."
What is the police's situation on policemen/women giving their DNA so as to lessen the chance of a mix up at a crime scene, do other civillian crime scene personnel have to give their DNA.
If not why?.
"The UK police now have more DNA samples than any other country. Over 5% of the UK's population is on the National DNA database compared to Austria, which has the 2nd largest proportion of the population on its police database at just over 1%. Although the assumption is that by holding the DNA profiles of more individuals on the database, more crimes will be solved, there is no evidence to support this. However, evidence of abuse of the information held on the police database is increasing, including its use for controversial genetic research without consent.
Since April 2004, the police in England and Wales have been able to take DNA samples without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence. Recordable offences include begging, being drunk and disorderly and taking part in an illegal demonstration. Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted. A massive expansion in the number of individuals on the Database has not led to any noticable increase in the likelihood of identifying a suspect. GeneWatch believes the current practices are wrong and has a number of concerns about the governance of the database.
In Scotland the law is different and DNA cannot be kept permanently from innocent people. However, DNA from people convicted of relatively minor offences such as Breach of the Peace can be kept for life."
What is the police's situation on policemen/women giving their DNA so as to lessen the chance of a mix up at a crime scene, do other civillian crime scene personnel have to give their DNA.
If not why?.
Yung Man said:
What is the police's situation on policemen/women giving their DNA so as to lessen the chance of a mix up at a crime scene, do other civilian crime scene personnel have to give their DNA.
If not why?.
Officers prints and DNA are taken with regard to them being used for elimination purposes. If not why?.
FishFace said:
I take the point that people think the database is too large and that people not convicted should have theirs wiped. Hardly a neutral source it seems.
Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it, it also doesn't mean they wont do something again in the future. Greendubber said:
FishFace said:
I take the point that people think the database is too large and that people not convicted should have theirs wiped. Hardly a neutral source it seems.
Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it, it also doesn't mean they wont do something again in the future. 
Sheriff JWPepper said:
Greendubber said:
FishFace said:
I take the point that people think the database is too large and that people not convicted should have theirs wiped. Hardly a neutral source it seems.
Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it, it also doesn't mean they wont do something again in the future. CPS = Criminal Protection Service in my opinion!
Had a few recently admit the offence in interview, put the file together for a decision for CPS and include the IP's prints in there and BAM!, they have previous so NFA.
FishFace said:
Greendubber said:
FishFace said:
I take the point that people think the database is too large and that people not convicted should have theirs wiped. Hardly a neutral source it seems.
Just because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it, it also doesn't mean they wont do something again in the future. 
FishFace said:
Where is there "evidence" of abuse?
Hard to find seeing as the the details of over 20 research projects granting access to the DNA SAMPLES (not profile) to PRIVATE firms are secret. Those samples contain full DNA, you have no idea what tests will be available in the future. What if a certain gene makes someone more likely to be agreesive - do you screen the database to identify these individuals, what do you do when you identift them?. We do know that the "kind" of research includes whether they can use the profiles to identify race and gender. The goverments own advisory body The Human Genetics Commission says samples should be destroyed. NO OTHER country in the whole world retains DNA data in the way the England and Wales do. YES, Scotland follows the rest of the world in how they use data. Then we can start talking about the privatation of the foresensic service which will take the database into private hands - who knows what will happen then, who will access the samples and what they will do with it. EXCEPT we do, as Forensic services already has to outsource much of DNA profile to private companies. At least one of which has been caught with its hands in the till by retaining the DNA data on its own PRIVATE labs and computer systems. Apparently this is OK according to the Forensic and we shouldn't be worried 
The problem is naive people think the database is a list of pretty lines that you see on the telly, you get a sample from the crime, run it through the database and see if you get a match. It is often compared to fingerprinting.
This is naive and WRONG - it is nothing like fingerprint matching. It has a place, but it needs stringent controls and we are well over the line.
I know FF is keen supporter of all things state, so answer this, why are we the only country to run the DNA database in the way we do? What unique viewpoint or characterstic of English society requires us to go so far beyond every other country including those north of border?
7db said:
No case to answer and a big legal bill. They will have to forcibly take your DNA.
Edited for accuracy.Forcibly extracting someone's genetic code was the stuff of science fiction.
Still, 18 months or less and I shall be shuffling off this island to somewhere where on can still remain unbound to the state, if only in the smallest of ways.
CCTV, scameras, traffic calming, ban everything, PC culture - what real difference have they made to this once green and pleasant land?
Greendubber said:
Plotloss said:
So we have more DNA records and more CCTV cameras than any other country on earth.
How does our Police service performance stack up against other countries in light of these vile intrusions of civil liberty?
Vile intrusion of civil liberties?, if you say so! How does our Police service performance stack up against other countries in light of these vile intrusions of civil liberty?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff