OllyK

My concern is the potential for a shift in emphasis. Rather than using DNA as an additional piece of evidence to prove that a person DID commit a crime, my concern is that it will become the primary method for crime detection. Sweep a scene for DNA, look everybody up on the database and then pull them in for questioning. In a relatively public place a very large number of people could get pulled in and you could find yourself being pulled on a regular basis just because at some point you happend to pass through a rough area leaving a trail of DNA behind you which keeps being picked up. It's a slow switch from innocent until proven guilty to we found your DNA in the area, you're guilty unless you can prove otherwise. We are already seeing this change in emphasis with NIPs, I seen no reason for the government to stop there.

Leslie

Thanks TopBanana from me too. That was a fascinating article and I can find nothing incorrect in it.

Les

Rabid

Just one of the reasons why I won't co-operate with the police unless forced to by circumstances.
For example if there was a murder or rape case in my area I wouldn't give my DNA to eliminate myself from the enquiry (obviously I'd be innocent).

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

While I agree with your sentiment about the police and lazy use of DNA, the rest is a bit OTT. It's actually fairly hard to leave a trail of DNA behind, unless you are a footballer and like to gob everywhere. And once you start getting into mixtures, interpretation gets very hard, and evidention value sinks quickly. But the main problem with DNA evidence is that none of the major players - police, lawyers, judges, juries - really understand it, and tend to misunderstand what the experts tell them.

A quick test (which I've used before) to see if YOU understand DNA evidence: a bag is found in a man's house under his bed, and it contains a load of drugs. The man claims he didn't know it was there, and he has never touched it. Is it worth swabbing for DNA in order to prove that he had handled it?


M

Martin-STI

You can ask for it to be destroyed, invasion of privacy.

I think it should be all or nothing, but agree, that it wont be long before they want to test peoples DNA for insurance etc

Jamescsti

Try it, I can tell you no it's not corect, if you are talking about DNA records, The Police officer may be slightly out of touch if he has retired, but a Solicitor should know better!! (assuming they practice criminal law?)

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Exactly - the law has changed and AFAIK there are now no longer any grounds for the removal of records from the NDNADB. And the bit about destroying them in front of you has always been nonsense: what actually happened was that the police filled in a form asking for them to be removed. The form was sent to the FSS (or more usually, not sent) who would then remove them from the DB, and then then send a form back to the police saying it had been done. The police cannot access the NDNADB, so cannot destroy (or otherwise alter) records.


M

DCI Gene Hunt

Really...........

Quote:

Tens of thousands of unsolved crimes could be cracked with a new forensic technique, it has been claimed.


The Forensic Science Service (FSS) is piloting a computer-based analysis system which can interpret previously unintelligible junk DNA samples.
It claims the technique is a world first which will boost its crime detection rates by more than 15%.
The method is being tested by the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Northumbria and Humberside police forces. It allows scientists to pinpoint DNA samples when more than one individual has touched a surface, where only small amounts of DNA have been left behind or only poor quality material was found.

...........................

OllyK

You leave a trail of hairs and dead skin all over the place.

Sure, unfortunately, it's wrapped in a plastic bag that he used to get the shopping from tesco, although he had never handled it once it had the drugs in it. The DNA evidence says he handled it, not necessarily when, relative to the change in use of the bag.

dsmith

Spokesman on the radio described it a "a database of potential criminals" - yep thats all of us now.

If only the government wernt building a single national database to hold medical information of everyone from birth to grave that you could imagine would easliy suddenly hold a dna profile otained at birth.

Oh shi....

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Big Brother is shouting at you...

Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Leslie

Yet another loss of our privacy and personal freedom.

Les

DCI Gene Hunt

Assuming we actually had any to start with...........

Freelance Badger

Yes if you have been arrested they will take DNA samples + photos + a full set of finger prints and keep them on file - even if you are later released without charge....Just means I have to wear gloves from now on and remember not to leave any fluids etc at the scene of the crime.

davegtt

Yup, was arrested last year because I was apparently too drunk and insisting that an officer helps me prosecute 2 bouncers who used excessive force on me and litterally throwing me a good ten feet through the air when I was splitting a fight up. I spent the night in the cells and treated like a criminal having a picture took from all angles, swab of DNA from my mouth and my finger prints taking. It was fekking humiliating

Abdabz

The more DNA on record the better, it cannot be a bad thing. I've been arrested twice (criminal damage and D&D in my younger years, before DNA testing became part of the process) and welcome the idea that as many people as possible have their records on file.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Your quote grossly mis-uses the work "junk" in this context. "Junk DNA" has a very specific meaning, and it's not what that (rather poor) quote refers to. What the quote means is DNA-containing evidence that up until now have been of too poor a quality to get a profile out of. The new x42 technique is basically a much cheaper version of LCN, which has been out a while. It now means that the police can actually afford to get DNA profiles out of things like fingerprints, whereas before it cost about £2500 per profile.


OllyK

Not exactly, although this may or may not be true. Actually you gave the real answer in your first comment:

Correct - which means a bag under someone's bed will be covered in their DNA whether they have handled it or not.


M

StickyMicky

i have done plenty wrong, so they have a fine choice of my DNA

vindaloo

I can't disagree but given the preocupation with fscking people over with statistics the establishment has, I can't help but wonder....

Probably 1 in 3 billion counting everyone in the world. Thing is, I live in the UK and my family has done so "forever". Can't help but think there will be more problems with false positives between people of similar racial and social groups, especially if you stick them together on an island which has a rich history of being p*ssed off with it's nearest neighbours over the previous couple of hundred years.

J.

dsmith

Imagine the DNA overlap in Norfolk......

Chris5-0

I love these type of threads, everyone shouting about Big Brother!!

I've never been locked up, never had my DNA taken by the police and live in a very rough area!! I'd love everyone to have a DNA file on them for when i eventually get mugged, beated or murdered by the next person who has slipped into the country undetected or let in on the pretext of being vulnerable in their home countries (i'm assuming all immigrants wil be DNA tested?)!!

I'll be at the front of the queue laughing at the mugs not bothering!!

Come on, someone tell me what the big conspiracy is? What's so morally wrong about DNA databases?

Let's not have the usual Sci Fi conspiracy theories, lets have concrete here and now facts that its a bad thing!!

Go on, step up!!

Shark Man

What if somebody has dual DNA strands (Chimera DNA). There are poeple where certain parts of their body contain different DNA.

I forget the reference source and specifics for these cases, but these poeple could be immune to the system, as swabs from their mouth may not match dna from their skin or blood.

Imgaine what this person could do if he were to be a contract killer in a world which relies heavily on dna sampling as prime evidence.

I could make a film out of this

Felix.

I agree. Why not get rid of all DNA and fingerprint records. That will really help in solving and preventing crimes.....

mart360

its the morality issue, ands other aspects that make it unwanted.

cast your mind back when teflon came to power,

he promised transparency and openness, and for a while it was a honeymoon period. then teflon had his first bloody nose, the first petrol strike. You have to remember teflons roots are with the unions, and he had to be seen to be supporting the brothers. So with great gusto he embraced the "rights" of the workers to hold peacefull protests, actually i seem to recall he encouraged it.

Anyway it went badly wrong, and he ended up with a bloody nose. So what did teflon do? he then passed legislation against it. (cant be seen to loose , it would show weakness), so on the one hand he was promoting open-ness and trasparancy and freedom of rights, and yet he was allready curbing the freedoms that he activly encouraged.

We move on, he then went onto change a fundamantal parts of our democratic system which our legal system is founded, the right to silence, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty. was this an open and democratic desicision? oh no, this was done with stealth and without consulting the populous.

it was the latter action which is the bone of contention. the presumption of innocence until guilt proven. This effectivly meant that any evidence gathered about or during an investigation was null and void if the person was proven not guilty. And as such all evidence was to be destroyed.

Now we see that this fundamental issue has been overrulled, and evidence gathered is no longer beign destroyed as is legally required. Was any change to statue made, was the previous law repealed?

Two further issues arise from this, the first, evidence gathered from minors. So if a child under 10 years old is arrested and DNA taken (as has been previously stated) this DNA is stored, yet a child under 10 is considered to be not responsible for there actions, and as such cannot be held responsible. so any DNA evidence is inadmissible. Now if the said child commits no crime until they are say in there 60,s and this DNA evidence is used, then surely the DNA was obtained illeagally. How could a conviction stand?

The second issue is from recent events, namely the bungs for perages scandal. As you know several hight profile persons have been arrested and questioned, what about the DNA taken from them? whats the betting that it was never taken, or if it was it would be destroyed. so if it can apply here in a simple fraud case, then surley being found innocent should automamtically mean that the evidence was destroyed.

I think the real issue, is that despite there being a legal precident to destroy data, following a NG result, Teflon is telling his employees, to ignore that request. Once agian showing how he ignoring the legal process.

Why should a gov want so much data about individuals? we complete a censorship form by law, we are a free country and as such are not required to carry identity cards on a daily basis. So what is the real agenda?

remember a certain austrian 60 years ago didnt plan for the outcome that happened, but by social exclusion and targeting a specific faith, we ended up with the worst scenario ever. What happens when people start screening the junk DNA or attempting to genetically profile the data?

its for these reasons people are against the database


mart

Felix.

You still are innocent until proven guilty - and if you are proven not guilty, the evidence would still be 'live' as the actual perpetrator has not been caught - so what is the point of destroying it.

The DNA taken on arrest will not be classed as evidence. If DNA is an issue with the case it is a different sample that is taken – not a screening one.

To be honest Mart – I can see that they will be objections to this and I can appreciate the points you raise. I personally am all for DNA screening and I believe this should be taken from everyone at birth. With advances in DNA technology, every crime committed will have DNA hit and a suspect. It will also help when bodies are found etc.

If we do abandon taking DNA and fingerprints as a mater of course, then I hope the public appreciate that when their house is burgled and fingerprints/DNA are found, the police can write the case off as unsolvable.

Incidentally, where do you stand on persons who commit a crime (such as rape, murder) years ago, stay clean for a while, then commit a minor offence sometime later. They may be found not guilty at court, but their DNA is taken which implicates them in the previous offence?

Gymbal

Felix, do you know what the burgalry (sp) success (conviction and/or recovery)rate is?
Incidentally what is the the rate for attendance at such events.
Whether a DNA database is a "good " thing surely that is for Parliament to debate openly and decide on such a fundamental event. Not one person.
Is his sons DNA on file? What do you think?

scoobynutta555

It's not just how new laws affect us straight away, it's how the same laws can be manipulated in the future by unscrupulous politicians in the future. Just look at Walter Wolfgang and see what piece of legislation he was arrested for.

Felix.

Gymbal

Burglary is one of many crimes which we deal with, so I’m not sure what the figures are for each specific crime. However for overall crime, our force is currently running at about 35 % detection rate which is pretty good going. When you consider this figure bear in mind that we will have loads of crimes which are reported to us, but have not happened (false reports but which can’t be proven) – hence can not be detected. We have loads that are discontinued because they are not in the public interest to pursue and we will have a boat load that get to court and are found not guilty – not due to police efforts or their agreement.

Attendance of dwelling burglary is compulsory with our force, attendance at other burglaries may or may not be necessary depending on the victims needs and the circumstances of the incident.

I agree that this should be debated at government level. I personally hope that it is passed – I just hope that, if it is rejected, the public will understand that our investigations will be limited.

Felix.

I’m curious – what’s this one about..?

Gymbal

WW, wasn't he the Labour heckler who was arrested under section 44 of the terrorism act. Apparently he had Iraqi WMD under his CND vest!

Thought crime.

Nothing to fear.