National DNA database ...
19 March 2010, 02:57 PM
#1
Owner of SNet
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National DNA database ...
BBC News - Isle of Wight rapist caught by daughter's DNA
It's getting ever closer ... IMHO a bad thing even though it may "catch" offenders.
TX.
It's getting ever closer ... IMHO a bad thing even though it may "catch" offenders.
TX.
19 March 2010, 11:52 PM
#4
Owner of SNet
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trouble is though Les that DNA "evidence" is often quoted as "it's a million to one chance of being someone else" yet there are 60m+ people in the UK so really there is a 59/60 chance that it's not the person that has been fingered.
TX.
TX.
20 March 2010, 12:43 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
A National DNA DataBase and FingerPrint DataBase would get my full support .... anything that helps in crime fighting and conviction rates!
I also favour an Identity Card - which carries all your details, medical stuff, etc.
What would the Pikeys do?
I also favour an Identity Card - which carries all your details, medical stuff, etc.
What would the Pikeys do?
20 March 2010, 12:47 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
I'm more supportive of a passive system such as DNA and other biometric data storage, than the monitoring of movement. For it to be of any use, DNA or other physical evidence has to be left and found at the scene of an actual crime. The nation-wide ANPR network tracking the movement of every car, and thus the whereabouts of nearly all of us, regardless of whether a crime is involved or whether you are involved, is much more sinister IMHO.
20 March 2010, 12:50 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Why do you care if the ANPR tracks where you are at any point in the day? I'm always suspicious of people who don't want to be tracked.
Indeed, I would favour having a tracking chip in my neck .... as long as everyone else did. Imagine what that would do for crime!
Indeed, I would favour having a tracking chip in my neck .... as long as everyone else did. Imagine what that would do for crime!
Trending Topics
20 March 2010, 12:59 AM
#9
SN Fairy Godmother
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 March 2010, 01:12 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
It's called freedom, liberty, and UNTIL I am decreed unworthy of that by a court of law then NO-ONE has the right to monitor and record my movements or whereabouts, and that freedom is mine, and yours under British and European law.
20 March 2010, 10:15 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of those 60m half are women and millions of others can be excluded as they are/were children or old people who would not be rapists.
If the cops suspect a guy because he has close match DNA and then find out he lived a few blocks aways from his victim then that's good enough for me. dl
20 March 2010, 10:34 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one wishing to have their fingerprints and DNA on the data base will be welcomed by the Police. You just need to go to the nearest decent size Police Station (that's open, ours closes during the peak crime period) and tell them you wish to be on the database. For those that think its a good thing, go on be public spirited.
I look forward to hearing from you that you have volunteered. Go on do it less of the talk, show you support it by your actions!
I look forward to hearing from you that you have volunteered. Go on do it less of the talk, show you support it by your actions!
20 March 2010, 10:39 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you know that this was what Tony Blair saw for the future? After DNA and ID cards he did favour that every citizen had a chip (like dogs and cats), he did speak about it but didnt roll it out as he thought that people wouldnt understand what a damn fine thing it would be.
20 March 2010, 01:20 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
It would be a fine thing .... I'm being absolutely serious!!
Everyone with a chip.
The penalty for commiting a crime would be death unless a court of law decided that it was minor - the assumption would be death.
In 5 years we would have a world where we can walk in peace, where we can leave our cars and doors open, where there would be no fear of muggings, murder, rape and child molestation .... it would happen, of course, but the offenders would be caught within hours and killed within days.
I would fully support a party who suggested such a radical and superb policy!
Everyone with a chip.
The penalty for commiting a crime would be death unless a court of law decided that it was minor - the assumption would be death.
In 5 years we would have a world where we can walk in peace, where we can leave our cars and doors open, where there would be no fear of muggings, murder, rape and child molestation .... it would happen, of course, but the offenders would be caught within hours and killed within days.
I would fully support a party who suggested such a radical and superb policy!
20 March 2010, 01:35 PM
#17
I'm more supportive of a passive system such as DNA and other biometric data storage, than the monitoring of movement. For it to be of any use, DNA or other physical evidence has to be left and found at the scene of an actual crime. The nation-wide ANPR network tracking the movement of every car, and thus the whereabouts of nearly all of us, regardless of whether a crime is involved or whether you are involved, is much more sinister IMHO.
20 March 2010, 01:53 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must still be a pretty good pointer though, but I think further evidence should be required to convict.
Les
20 March 2010, 01:54 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les
20 March 2010, 04:17 PM
#20
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one wishing to have their fingerprints and DNA on the data base will be welcomed by the Police. You just need to go to the nearest decent size Police Station (that's open, ours closes during the peak crime period) and tell them you wish to be on the database. For those that think its a good thing, go on be public spirited.
I look forward to hearing from you that you have volunteered. Go on do it less of the talk, show you support it by your actions!
I look forward to hearing from you that you have volunteered. Go on do it less of the talk, show you support it by your actions!
Then all the "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" sanctimonious ***** can start to worry about proving consent (in the case of rape), contamination (by incompetent forensic "experts" - anybody see Bang Goes the Theory where they brushed down a jacket whilst not wearing gloves) and being stitched up (enemies, bent police etc leaving your DNA at a crime scene).
Indeed, let us start with the whole of parliament!
mb
20 March 2010, 08:05 PM
#22
No they won't, because it costs the police money to process a DNA sample. When the NDNADB was first set up this money came from the Home Office, but now it comes from police budgets. Unless they think that DNA will help solve a crime they'll more or less politely tell you to get lost.
M
Last edited by _Meridian_; 20 March 2010 at 08:06 PM.
20 March 2010, 08:38 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oppressive government relies on the feeble minded like you. The feeble minded like you deserve oppressive government.
20 March 2010, 09:14 PM
#24
DNA evidence alone is insufficient to convict.
CPS will not authorise a charge based solely on DNA evidence.
DNA evidence followed by a failure of the suspect to account for their DNA at the scene or after a special warning at the time of arrest may result in a charge. There must be some corroboration.
As previously mentioned, its hardly new technology is it..........
CPS will not authorise a charge based solely on DNA evidence.
DNA evidence followed by a failure of the suspect to account for their DNA at the scene or after a special warning at the time of arrest may result in a charge. There must be some corroboration.
As previously mentioned, its hardly new technology is it..........
21 March 2010, 12:19 AM
#25
Scooby Senior
oh, it's nothing to do with the National Dyslexia Association then?
21 March 2010, 12:55 AM
#26
Owner of SNet
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be right fella, was just something I read in a book. I do think the whole thing is very sinister as a "match" is not foolproof ... people have been matched, sent to prison then released when the match was proven un-sound. The more peeps on the database the more likely it is for errors to occur 
TX.
TX.
21 March 2010, 02:30 AM
#27
You may be right fella, was just something I read in a book. I do think the whole thing is very sinister as a "match" is not foolproof ... people have been matched, sent to prison then released when the match was proven un-sound. The more peeps on the database the more likely it is for errors to occur
TX.
TX.
What has happened is that people have been convicted before DNA was used, then DNA evidence has been used to prove their innocence. Stefan Kishco was an example.
For DNA evidence to be used, then the suspect is arrested if he matches a mark found at a crime scene with their DNA on the database. A further sample is taken from this person in custody and matched against a second sample from the crime scene. This is the quoted as a probability and other evidence is needed.
If the DNA database will get more criminals off the streets, the surly it’s a good thing
21 March 2010, 02:35 AM
#28
Just thinking...........................The FBI has an expensive history in the USA collecting extensive saliva samples, iris scans, fingerprint records, and even stool and semen samples, and further years compiling what is known as the "The World's Largest DNA Database".
"The World's Largest DNA Database" huh?
We have Katie Price's ******.
"The World's Largest DNA Database" huh?
We have Katie Price's ******.
21 March 2010, 02:58 AM
#29
Owner of SNet
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll post em up as I find em
CentreRight: Wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence - a pervasive and persistent issue
http://www.smh.com.au/national/dna-l...1002-ggj6.html
From another source:
"Ms Wilson-Wilde, from the NSW Police Service, Forensic Services Group, has explained
the significance of profiling results as follows:
…When two samples do not match this is a definitive exclusion – they do not come
from the same source, but when two samples do match this means they may have
come from the same source. It is not conclusive [but] it is extremely strong
evidence.
Ms Wilson-Wilde noted that the reason why a match is not conclusive is because DNA
profiling only looks at a number of specific sites rather than looking at the entire DNA code
(which would take years because the DNA molecule is so large)"
"A coincidental match of DNA profiles occurred in 1999 in the United Kingdom:
…a man was charged with a break-and-enter offence after being matched via the
UK database to a crime scene profile. The match odds were given as one in 37
million. The man suffered from Parkinson’s disease, could not eat or dress himself
without assistance, couldn’t drive and was confined to a wheelchair. The break and
enter took place on a second floor apartment that was 200 miles from his home. The
man simply had the same six loci DNA profile as the actual perpetrator. He was
later excluded with more discriminating tests [ie: comparison at ten loci]"
TX.
CentreRight: Wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence - a pervasive and persistent issue
http://www.smh.com.au/national/dna-l...1002-ggj6.html
From another source:
"Ms Wilson-Wilde, from the NSW Police Service, Forensic Services Group, has explained
the significance of profiling results as follows:
…When two samples do not match this is a definitive exclusion – they do not come
from the same source, but when two samples do match this means they may have
come from the same source. It is not conclusive [but] it is extremely strong
evidence.
Ms Wilson-Wilde noted that the reason why a match is not conclusive is because DNA
profiling only looks at a number of specific sites rather than looking at the entire DNA code
(which would take years because the DNA molecule is so large)"
"A coincidental match of DNA profiles occurred in 1999 in the United Kingdom:
…a man was charged with a break-and-enter offence after being matched via the
UK database to a crime scene profile. The match odds were given as one in 37
million. The man suffered from Parkinson’s disease, could not eat or dress himself
without assistance, couldn’t drive and was confined to a wheelchair. The break and
enter took place on a second floor apartment that was 200 miles from his home. The
man simply had the same six loci DNA profile as the actual perpetrator. He was
later excluded with more discriminating tests [ie: comparison at ten loci]"
TX.
Last edited by Terminator X; 21 March 2010 at 03:13 AM.
21 March 2010, 08:27 AM
#30
You've noticed that it's 2010, right? That science marches on? That that was pretty early days of DNA profiling? If the conviction was 1999, the DNA work was probably done in about 1997, before even SGM, never mind SGM+. Hence the relatively short odds quoted.
M