Discussion
link
bbc said:
Judges rule in favour of DNA case
Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are now retained
The European Court of Human Rights has found in favour of two British men who argued it was illegal for police to hold their DNA and fingerprints.
Neither of the men had been convicted of any offence.
The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.
The men's information was retained by South Yorkshire Police, although they were not convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested.
The database may now have to be scaled back following the judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.
Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted
The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.
One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped after the couple were reconciled.
The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but was later acquitted.
In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.
The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.
They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.
The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.
Thousands of DNA samples from innocent people are now retained
The European Court of Human Rights has found in favour of two British men who argued it was illegal for police to hold their DNA and fingerprints.
Neither of the men had been convicted of any offence.
The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.
The men's information was retained by South Yorkshire Police, although they were not convicted of the crimes for which they were arrested.
The database may now have to be scaled back following the judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.
Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted
The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.
One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001. FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped after the couple were reconciled.
The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but was later acquitted.
In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.
The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.
They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.
The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.
satchbot said:
I'm for the database. As has been said - the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences.
I might sound clueless here. But is there a voluntary way to give DNA, so its on record. If you dont match you would be ruled out, so they dont know down your door and arrest you?Could you trust them not to abuse the information though, other government agencies using it for tracking down missing fathers, finding who has a predilection for anything from heart disease and cancer to risk taking or criminal activity? Might even be able to make a clone of you at some stage for all we’d know.
ks.Crusoe said:
Could you trust them not to abuse the information though, other government agencies using it for tracking down missing fathers, finding who has a predilection for anything from heart disease and cancer to risk taking or criminal activity? Might even be able to make a clone of you at some stage for all we’d know.
Inconveniencing (and worse) the majority because of an issue with the minority is daft, particularly as DNA testing isn't the be all and end all.In court they quote a 1 in 3 millionish chance of the DNA test not matching (If that makes sense), so do you want to account for your whereabouts when one of the 20 or so other people with similar results to you gets their DNA at a crime scene?
satchbot said:
I'm for the database. As has been said - the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences.
I would be for it if I believed for it were infallible AND the operators were able to competently manage it. As it is I'm not convinced of the first part and lets face it, if the operators are in any way linked to our justice system then competence is a hindrance to their career path. Edited by Davi on Thursday 4th December 10:49
Great, so when the masters of data retention let some records slip and they end up in the hands of some medical companies, what then? Oh Sir, we notice that you have a slight chance of increased heart failure so we are doubling your premiums. What? Your children? No Sir, they will be genetic deviants, won't touch 'em.
illmonkey said:
satchbot said:
I'm for the database. As has been said - the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences.
I might sound clueless here. But is there a voluntary way to give DNA, so its on record. If you dont match you would be ruled out, so they dont know down your door and arrest you?Trommel said:
hornetrider said:
I can't see anything wrong with having a DNA database, for everyone... why not take a sample at birth? Shirley the only people who need worry are scrotes who rob, rape and murder?
Not this again.How stupid are you people?
Marf said:
Finally some sense on the matter, lets hope this case sets a precident for the destruction of samples for those who are sampled, yet proven to be innocent.
There is no such thing as 'proven innocent', at least not in law. You are innocent unless it can be proven that you're not. That is the way it should be.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff