cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

one for those who dont like DNA records to read

pierre_pierre
Grafter
Posts: 19,757
Registered: 30-07-2007

one for those who dont like DNA records to read

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-15923444
Quote
On Friday, Button was convicted, at Chelmsford Crown Court, of the sexual assault on the then 22-year-old woman, in woodland in Wivenhoe in December 2009.
Mr McNamara explained after six months of investigations officers had all but exhausted their inquiries.
He said they were close to conducting a mass DNA screening in the local area, when Button's profile match came to light.
In May 2010, he was arrested for a domestic assault and his DNA was taken as a matter of routine.

Mr McNamara said: "Within days of it being on the database we were informed.
"The odds, we were told, were over a billion to one, so we were quite confident we'd got the right man."
The national database is believed to hold over five million DNA profiles and has often been a source of debate.
5 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,313
Thanks: 462
Fixes: 1
Registered: 21-03-2011

Re: one for those who dont like DNA records to read

It is just the police trying to hang on to their idea of a police state. I've no problem with the DNA profile of convicted criminals being held on a central database,  However keeping an indefinite DNA record for everyone arrested, but not proven guilty is a step too far. It could be so easily misused by the police. They are not angels.
Now Zen, but a +Net residue.
pierre_pierre
Grafter
Posts: 19,757
Registered: 30-07-2007

Re: one for those who dont like DNA records to read

Quote
The national database is believed to hold over five million DNA profiles and has often been a source of debate.
The retention of DNA, particularly of people found to be innocent, is currently under discussion as part of the coalition governments' Protection of Freedoms Bill.
Civil liberties group Liberty has said it believed the current retention of innocent people's DNA to be "disproportionate" and "discriminatory".
It said it was working to ensure a "more proportionate and human rights compliant DNA retention regime".
Mr McNamara accepted that people's human rights need to be considered.
"But what I would say is try to put yourself in the difficult position this young lady found herself in," he said.
"She's gone through that trauma for six months not knowing who had attacked her and, if I'm honest, without the database she'd still be wondering who it was now."
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 16,507
Thanks: 1,773
Fixes: 121
Registered: 06-04-2007

Re: one for those who dont like DNA records to read

To me the DNA national database just criminalises everyone on it.
By all means take samples when someone is under investigation as long as there is further evidence that may incriminate that person.
If he/she is not convicted (guilty or not) then the DNA record should be deleted.
What happened to good old police detection? Either way, some perpetrators got caught and some didn't.

Forum Moderator and Customer
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear - Mark Twain
He who feared he would not succeed sat still

mentalist3d
Grafter
Posts: 371
Registered: 20-08-2009

Re: one for those who dont like DNA records to read

The thing about using DNA as evidence, is that your DNA can easily be passed onto people and transferred to other locations. For instance, I can shake someones hand and leave a trace of DNA on their hand, they can then travel to the other side of the UK, commit a crime and unknowingly leave a trace of my DNA at the crime scene. Or, a strand of hair could fall out in the street, land on someone who later commits a crime, that strand of hair may be left at the crime scene, and so on.
Your DNA is passed/spread with every contact you make, and on top of that;

  • Errors in DNA testing occur regularly

  • DNA evidence has caused false incriminations and false convictions


If anyone's interested there is a good research paper on the errors/dangers of using DNA as evidence, published by the Council for Responsible Genetics - http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI.pdf
Community Veteran
Posts: 13,919
Thanks: 514
Fixes: 7
Registered: 01-08-2007

Re: one for those who dont like DNA records to read

Quote from: pierre_pierre
Quote
"The odds, we were told, were over a billion to one, so we were quite confident we'd got the right man."


With what.. 7 billion people on the planet it could still be 6 other people then. Whilst I agree its almost uncertainly him there is too much confidence in these techniques.
A while back Kent police dropped over 120 speeding conviction when one of their officers was found using a speed gun without calibrating it. Other speed guns have been found to record stationary objects like brick walls moving at 44 mph and in the past when we still had the death penalty we did away with a few people who later turned out to be innocent.
Then publishing a comment like "we're quite confident.." doesn't really make you feel that you can really trust them and this DNA technique.
I agree that it probably is very reliable but issuing those odds and then saying they're confident.. it leaves room for doubt to creep in.
I need a new signature... i'm bored of the old one!