Police arrest to boost DNA database, warns watchdog
Discussion
Daily Telegraph 24 November 2009 said:
Officers will arrest individuals for "everything" because they then have to power to take DNA samples, even if they wouldn't have been detained under other circumstances.
The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) warned the alarming practice, which was revealed by a retired senior police officer, was creating a "spiral of suspicion" over the DNA database.
In a major review of the system, it said police should no longer be allowed to automatically take DNA samples for everyone they arrest and called for new rules on when it was right to do so.
It suggested the growth in the programme, which is the largest of its kind in the world, stemmed from a pledge in 2000 by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, to have the DNA of every criminal within three years.
The Commission, an independent Government advisory body, also questioned the effectiveness of the database in helping to solve crimes and called for a detailed examination of its success.
A public debate and proper scrutiny of the system was needed as there was "very little concrete evidence" as to how useful the database was in investigating crime.
The report will fuel concerns over the growth of the surveillance state and the erosion of privacy.
Under the current rules, police can demand a DNA samples from any one they arrest for a recordable offence.
In written submission to the HGC's review, a retired senior police officer, said: "It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so.
"It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained: samples can be obtained after arrest but not if there is a report for summons.
"It matters not, of course, whether the arrest leads to no action, a caution or a charge, because the DNA is kept on the database anyway."
There are more than five million profiles on the DNA database, including up to one million innocent people who were never charged or convicted with an offence.
Professor Jonathan Montgomery, HGC chairman, said it had suffered from "function creep" over the years, transforming it from a database of offenders to a database of suspects.
"It's now become pretty much routine to take DNA samples on arrest," he said.
"So large numbers of people on the DNA database will be there not because they have been convicted, but because they've been arrested.
"Indeed, there was some evidence that we received, although it's hard for us to test, that occasionally people are arrested in order to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstances."
He warned it would create a "spiral of suspicion" and that it would be of "very great concern" if such practices were widespread.
Prof Montgomery added that more detailed research is required to evaluate how useful the database is in helping to solve crimes, describing current evidence as "flimsy".
He accused politicians of using single case studies where the database has secured a conviction instead of carrying out a rigorous evaluation of its scale and function.
"We have to strike a proper balance between identifying offenders and protecting privacy, including that of innocent people – we should not compromise that privacy without good reason," he said.
Over the past two years, more than 1.17 million profiles have been added to the database, according to the National Policing Improvement Agency, but the number of DNA-related detections fell from a peak of 41,148 in 2006-07 to 31,915 in 2008-09.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The Government’s cavalier attitude towards DNA retention has put us in the ridiculous situation where people are being arrested just to have their DNA harvested."
James Brokenshire, the shadow home affairs minister, said: "Under Labour's surveillance state everyone is treated as a potential suspect."
The HGC report, Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?, also warned current policies have a "disproportionate effect" on different age and ethnic groups and worries about some being stigmatised.
Young black men are "very highly over-represented" the report says, with more than three quarters of those aged 18-35 on the database.
New proposals within the Crime and Security Bill – published last week – will for the first time put a time limit, in most cases six years, on how long profiles are stored when the alleged offender is either not charged or later cleared. But there are currently no plans to diminish police powers to take samples on arrest.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Research shows no clear link between the level of offence for which an individual is arrested and the seriousness of any subsequent offence with which they may be associated.
"DNA samples are taken on arrest for recordable offences carrying a prison sentence.
"The Government is clear that this is the right threshold for taking and retaining DNA."
[ul]/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6636315/Police-arrest-so-they-can-boost-DNA-database-warns-watchdog.html[/url]
The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) warned the alarming practice, which was revealed by a retired senior police officer, was creating a "spiral of suspicion" over the DNA database.
In a major review of the system, it said police should no longer be allowed to automatically take DNA samples for everyone they arrest and called for new rules on when it was right to do so.
It suggested the growth in the programme, which is the largest of its kind in the world, stemmed from a pledge in 2000 by Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, to have the DNA of every criminal within three years.
The Commission, an independent Government advisory body, also questioned the effectiveness of the database in helping to solve crimes and called for a detailed examination of its success.
A public debate and proper scrutiny of the system was needed as there was "very little concrete evidence" as to how useful the database was in investigating crime.
The report will fuel concerns over the growth of the surveillance state and the erosion of privacy.
Under the current rules, police can demand a DNA samples from any one they arrest for a recordable offence.
In written submission to the HGC's review, a retired senior police officer, said: "It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so.
"It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained: samples can be obtained after arrest but not if there is a report for summons.
"It matters not, of course, whether the arrest leads to no action, a caution or a charge, because the DNA is kept on the database anyway."
There are more than five million profiles on the DNA database, including up to one million innocent people who were never charged or convicted with an offence.
Professor Jonathan Montgomery, HGC chairman, said it had suffered from "function creep" over the years, transforming it from a database of offenders to a database of suspects.
"It's now become pretty much routine to take DNA samples on arrest," he said.
"So large numbers of people on the DNA database will be there not because they have been convicted, but because they've been arrested.
"Indeed, there was some evidence that we received, although it's hard for us to test, that occasionally people are arrested in order to retain the DNA information even though they might not have been arrested in other circumstances."
He warned it would create a "spiral of suspicion" and that it would be of "very great concern" if such practices were widespread.
Prof Montgomery added that more detailed research is required to evaluate how useful the database is in helping to solve crimes, describing current evidence as "flimsy".
He accused politicians of using single case studies where the database has secured a conviction instead of carrying out a rigorous evaluation of its scale and function.
"We have to strike a proper balance between identifying offenders and protecting privacy, including that of innocent people – we should not compromise that privacy without good reason," he said.
Over the past two years, more than 1.17 million profiles have been added to the database, according to the National Policing Improvement Agency, but the number of DNA-related detections fell from a peak of 41,148 in 2006-07 to 31,915 in 2008-09.
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "The Government’s cavalier attitude towards DNA retention has put us in the ridiculous situation where people are being arrested just to have their DNA harvested."
James Brokenshire, the shadow home affairs minister, said: "Under Labour's surveillance state everyone is treated as a potential suspect."
The HGC report, Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?, also warned current policies have a "disproportionate effect" on different age and ethnic groups and worries about some being stigmatised.
Young black men are "very highly over-represented" the report says, with more than three quarters of those aged 18-35 on the database.
New proposals within the Crime and Security Bill – published last week – will for the first time put a time limit, in most cases six years, on how long profiles are stored when the alleged offender is either not charged or later cleared. But there are currently no plans to diminish police powers to take samples on arrest.
A Home Office spokeswoman said: "Research shows no clear link between the level of offence for which an individual is arrested and the seriousness of any subsequent offence with which they may be associated.
"DNA samples are taken on arrest for recordable offences carrying a prison sentence.
"The Government is clear that this is the right threshold for taking and retaining DNA."
[ul]/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6636315/Police-arrest-so-they-can-boost-DNA-database-warns-watchdog.html[/url]
Jasandjules said:
No great surprise.
What we need is more action from every individual who is arrested but not convicted to demand that their DNA is removed.
You will just end up with a lot of letters filed under B in CC offices. What we need is more action from every individual who is arrested but not convicted to demand that their DNA is removed.
We have had the highest court applicable to the UK rule it illegal, so a private company instructed the police force to "carry on as your were", so they have.
I'm not convinced, not least because the report doesn't actually specify any evidence (see below). The majority of people who are suspects / potential suspects the police deal with have had their DNA taken as they are criminals. I find it hard to believe that the police make a specific enquiry as to whether someone has their DNA stored on the database or not and then base a necessity for arrest upon that. Secondly, when most decent people are being dealt with it's often not for a recordable offence (traffic offences etc) so this makes the scenario a more of a minority. I also imagine someone asking whether or not someone's DNA has been taken when out on the street would stand out like a sore thumb.
I have a lot of faith in a report that doesn't know basic powers of PACE - DNA samples CAN be taken after a report on summons, what the f
k are they saying they can't for? What a reliable 'Watchdog' who can't even get a fundamental thing correct.
Daily Telegraph said:
It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained: samples can be obtained after arrest but not if there is a report for summons.
It is apparently understood? Wow. I have a lot of faith in a report that doesn't know basic powers of PACE - DNA samples CAN be taken after a report on summons, what the f
k are they saying they can't for? What a reliable 'Watchdog' who can't even get a fundamental thing correct. It is rather odd that there hasn't been more political pressure to limit the database. Despite the fact that from a DNA point of view there is no such thing as race, it can indicate origin. Not very dependably, but that would only add to its attraction to any oppressive ruling party.
Nazis entered synagogues and removed the roll of Jews in the various local areas, giving them a weapon in the pogrom. When I asked my father why they had been so stupid as to maintain such a list and then leave it where it could be stolen, my father said that they just didn’t believe a state would turn on them in that way. And nor did my dad come to that. After seeing what went on in the death camps he believed it was he who had been stupid both before and during the war because he rubbished those who said their were concentration camps where millions of Jews and other ‘undesirables’ were being put to death.
And now we have this country keeping lists in a manner that ignores the demands of the judiciary.
There was considerable support for the Mosley family’s putrid form of Nazism before the war. In the east end of London gangs roamed the streets beating a killing Jews. And to the upper classes, god bless them, Hitler was seen as their saviour.
We appear to have three out of four black males on the database. That would concern me in more ways than one if I was black. Or half black. Or even one-eighth.
I’m half ‘foreign’ although technically all my family were born in the UK as was.
Further what about people like me who have a congenital defect. It is not particularly life-threatening nowadays with modern treatment but it killed my granddad. What chance insurance for my kids and grandkids when the government sells access to the database in some pathetic attempt to hide its maladministration of the economy? Nice bequest I’ll be leaving them: no life insurance old son, so no mortgage.
I’ve been a supporter of a national database of fingerprints for some time. But DNA is different. It doesn’t just say who you are, it defines you. It is you in the smallest detail. And we appear to be letting the government, of all groups, free access to it.
It is very dangerous when the police use systems which the judiciary have ruled as illegal. Very dangerous indeed.
Nazis entered synagogues and removed the roll of Jews in the various local areas, giving them a weapon in the pogrom. When I asked my father why they had been so stupid as to maintain such a list and then leave it where it could be stolen, my father said that they just didn’t believe a state would turn on them in that way. And nor did my dad come to that. After seeing what went on in the death camps he believed it was he who had been stupid both before and during the war because he rubbished those who said their were concentration camps where millions of Jews and other ‘undesirables’ were being put to death.
And now we have this country keeping lists in a manner that ignores the demands of the judiciary.
There was considerable support for the Mosley family’s putrid form of Nazism before the war. In the east end of London gangs roamed the streets beating a killing Jews. And to the upper classes, god bless them, Hitler was seen as their saviour.
We appear to have three out of four black males on the database. That would concern me in more ways than one if I was black. Or half black. Or even one-eighth.
I’m half ‘foreign’ although technically all my family were born in the UK as was.
Further what about people like me who have a congenital defect. It is not particularly life-threatening nowadays with modern treatment but it killed my granddad. What chance insurance for my kids and grandkids when the government sells access to the database in some pathetic attempt to hide its maladministration of the economy? Nice bequest I’ll be leaving them: no life insurance old son, so no mortgage.
I’ve been a supporter of a national database of fingerprints for some time. But DNA is different. It doesn’t just say who you are, it defines you. It is you in the smallest detail. And we appear to be letting the government, of all groups, free access to it.
It is very dangerous when the police use systems which the judiciary have ruled as illegal. Very dangerous indeed.
FishFace said:
I find it hard to believe that the police make a specific enquiry as to whether someone has their DNA stored on the database or not and then base a necessity for arrest upon that.
We don't. I have NEVER checked the DNA database before an arrest and I have NEVER been told to arrest someone because they are not on it.That report is typical British Journalism. A complete load of cobblers. (In fact, it's made me quite angry it's such baseless tripe. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh!)
bluepolarbear said:
Jasandjules said:
No great surprise.
What we need is more action from every individual who is arrested but not convicted to demand that their DNA is removed.
You will just end up with a lot of letters filed under B in CC offices. What we need is more action from every individual who is arrested but not convicted to demand that their DNA is removed.
We have had the highest court applicable to the UK rule it illegal, so a private company instructed the police force to "carry on as your were", so they have.
I fully agree with the decision for innocent people to have their samples destroyed. It's clear that more pressure needs to be put on the state to uphold this ruling and not dither about as they have done for X months.
Derek, helping to prove Godwin's law I see
Derek Smith said:
Nazis entered synagogues and removed the roll of Jews in the various local areas, giving them a weapon in the pogrom. When I asked my father why they had been so stupid as to maintain such a list and then leave it where it could be stolen, my father said that they just didn’t believe a state would turn on them in that way.
And now we have this country keeping lists in a manner that ignores the demands of the judiciary.
It is very dangerous when the police use systems which the judiciary have ruled as illegal. Very dangerous indeed.
Yes. To those who say "...if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.." I say this: you're an idiot.And now we have this country keeping lists in a manner that ignores the demands of the judiciary.
It is very dangerous when the police use systems which the judiciary have ruled as illegal. Very dangerous indeed.
The government wants to increase what they find out about you on the next census, for example, are you straight, gay etc. I would suggest be very careful how you answer just in case some future government finds the information "useful"...
FishFace said:
Derek, helping to prove Godwin's law I see
I would assume you are not suggesting the analogy was inappropriate or misleading. I could, of course, have mentioned Stalin although I am unaware of any time when this country seemed likely to shift to the left. Not that there were many difference between Hitler and Stalin. Just a case of numbers killed.The post war reaction to the ultra right should not blind us to the fact that there was a significant minority in favour of nazism before the war. Most importantly the 'ruling classes'. It could happen here.
Apparently we have the largest DNA database in the world; if it's such an effective tool then why don;t we have the lowest crime rates accordingly?
The notion that officers would check for a profile before making arrests to fill specific gaps is a straw man: the issue is whether the 'system' has worked in such a way that obtaining DNA has been sufficient motivation to make an arrest under circumstances when such an arrest would otherwise have not been worth the trouble. This report suggest that this may have been so.
The notion that officers would check for a profile before making arrests to fill specific gaps is a straw man: the issue is whether the 'system' has worked in such a way that obtaining DNA has been sufficient motivation to make an arrest under circumstances when such an arrest would otherwise have not been worth the trouble. This report suggest that this may have been so.
from Custody Sergeant to PC!We recently had a very nasty incident at our house a few weeks ago in which we were the victims.
I luckily got away with a cut finger and left patches of blood through our hallway and kitchen areas.
The police contacted me the day before yesterday asking whether they could take a DNA sample from me to which I agreed.
I had to sign a two part form, one agreeing that my sample could be used for a forensic investigation and the other asking for permission to add my sample to the DNA database.
I agreed to the first part and did not sign the second.
I was a victim of crime and they asked for my sample to be added to the DNA database.
Edited to add: Sorry still a little emotive about the crime, both officers said I didn't have to add the sample to the database and was voluntary.
I luckily got away with a cut finger and left patches of blood through our hallway and kitchen areas.
The police contacted me the day before yesterday asking whether they could take a DNA sample from me to which I agreed.
I had to sign a two part form, one agreeing that my sample could be used for a forensic investigation and the other asking for permission to add my sample to the DNA database.
I agreed to the first part and did not sign the second.
I was a victim of crime and they asked for my sample to be added to the DNA database.
Edited to add: Sorry still a little emotive about the crime, both officers said I didn't have to add the sample to the database and was voluntary.
Edited by Big_Kahuna on Tuesday 24th November 11:22
Big_Kahuna said:
We recently had a very nasty incident at our house a few weeks ago in which we were the victims.
I luckily got away with a cut finger and left patches of blood through our hallway and kitchen areas.
The police contacted me the day before yesterday asking whether they could take a DNA sample from me to which I agreed.
I had to sign a two part form, one agreeing that my sample could be used for a forensic investigation and the other asking for permission to add my sample to the DNA database.
I agreed to the first part and did not sign the second.
I was a victim of crime and they asked for my sample to be added to the DNA database.
I don't understand why you had to give a sample. If they collected DNA from the scene and checked that through the DNA database and got a match (with a crim!) then result. If not, then you are in no worse position.I luckily got away with a cut finger and left patches of blood through our hallway and kitchen areas.
The police contacted me the day before yesterday asking whether they could take a DNA sample from me to which I agreed.
I had to sign a two part form, one agreeing that my sample could be used for a forensic investigation and the other asking for permission to add my sample to the DNA database.
I agreed to the first part and did not sign the second.
I was a victim of crime and they asked for my sample to be added to the DNA database.
ipsg.glf said:
I don't understand why you had to give a sample. If they collected DNA from the scene and checked that through the DNA database and got a match (with a crim!) then result. If not, then you are in no worse position.
The forensics person took samples of the blood around the house just after the incident.The officers that took my sample said that they wanted to confirm that the blood around the house was mine only.
Big_Kahuna said:
ipsg.glf said:
I don't understand why you had to give a sample. If they collected DNA from the scene and checked that through the DNA database and got a match (with a crim!) then result. If not, then you are in no worse position.
The forensics person took samples of the blood around the house just after the incident.The officers that took my sample said that they wanted to confirm that the blood around the house was mine only.
the DNA was yours, or
the DNA was not on the database.
In either event, it doesn't help identiy whose DNA it actually was.
Elroy Blue said:
That report is typical British Journalism. A complete load of cobblers. (In fact, it's made me quite angry it's such baseless tripe. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh!)
Maybe, yet the DNA of innocent people is retained, how can that be right, or even legal?ipsg.glf said:
But the only benefit for trying a match is if the perp is already on the database. SO they could have just checked the database and if it came back negative it meant:
the DNA was yours, or
the DNA was not on the database.
In either event, it doesn't help identiy whose DNA it actually was.
I'm only reporting what happened and what was asked of me.the DNA was yours, or
the DNA was not on the database.
In either event, it doesn't help identiy whose DNA it actually was.
Big_Kahuna said:
ipsg.glf said:
But the only benefit for trying a match is if the perp is already on the database. SO they could have just checked the database and if it came back negative it meant:
the DNA was yours, or
the DNA was not on the database.
In either event, it doesn't help identiy whose DNA it actually was.
I'm only reporting what happened and what was asked of me.the DNA was yours, or
the DNA was not on the database.
In either event, it doesn't help identiy whose DNA it actually was.
I find the Police arrogance on this subject absolutely amazing.
The police are supposed to be a disciplined service, they are also supposed to police by consent.
The Police have been told what they're doing is illegal, their response seems to be, yes ok, carry on chaps !
WTF, what happened to do as you're told plod ?
Why are no officers being charged with contempt of court ?
The police are supposed to be a disciplined service, they are also supposed to police by consent.
The Police have been told what they're doing is illegal, their response seems to be, yes ok, carry on chaps !
WTF, what happened to do as you're told plod ?
Why are no officers being charged with contempt of court ?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff