That's democracy, sadly that means it's a straight fight between the Sun and the Daily Mail.
What is all the hoohaa abuot a DNA database - bring it on!
- Thread starter NeilF
- Start date
That's democracy, sadly that means it's a straight fight between the Sun and the Daily Mail.
So they're going to kill someone, completely clean the crime scene and the corpse somehow without making it obvious then place some hair that has been forcibly ripped out by the roots, into say the victims hand along with scrapings of your scalp under the fingernails?
It's much easier to tell if something is fake than making a convincing fake.
lus what if the person has an alibi, no motive, or the hundreds of other reasons they would be discounted.
Wh if you're good enough to commit a murder without any of your DNA or any other evidence being found would you not just kill the drug dealer?
or if it was so you wouldn;t be caught for the other murder just not bother planting any and leave a clean scene.
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,034
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
And if one mistake is made, is that too much?
No you take some hair from a bush.
So even though DNA has no direct relation to any of those activities, you're going to force people to surrender it to your system any way? Wahey civil liberties!That's fine... They couldn't perform any of the other 'registrations' then...
If they willing to get buy without voting, most likely a job, bank account or many other things.... Good luck to them
It doesn't matter what their reasoning is any more. What matters is that they don't want you to have their DNA. But you're basically going to force them to give it to you.
Fantastic! A crime might be commited by you in future. Let's just get all your details now, so you can't. And you say there's no presumption of guilt in it.
I'm not sure what you were originally referring to, but if you refuse to give your fingerprints over, I'm pretty sure the police have to then get a warrant, which is basically them proving they have reasonable suspicion of you in the first place.
You honestly don't have a problem with the police forcefully taking DNA from the entire population, even those that refuse to? Wow. Just wow.
Arggh. That is your choice to do that! Just as you say you would willingly choose to give over your DNA to a register. That is not at all the same as force through law, and stop pretending it is.
Haha, faultless logic. Just faultless.
How did you put it? Oh yes:
LOOK AT THAT MAN. HE IS MADE OF STRAW. A STRAW MAN, IF YOU WILL.
err but that would be completely different, and would be blindingly obvius to the forensics team.
Not at all, your shedding hair all the time.
That is not the point. The DNA profile will NOT be held on its own, if it was it would be useless. It will be held with a lot of other personal detail. With the governments track record the less personal details they have about me to lose the better. I couldn't care less about the DNA profile itself but the data that is associated with it.
Moot point. You are presuming guilt which is wrong.
Thank you for proving my point so well for me. It isn't like the DVLA pass out these details to whoever asks for it...oh thats right they do, including to people with very dodgy business practices.
They aren't meaningless (if they were, they would be pointless) and it is all the additional data that is held with them and the presumption of guilt.
Actually yes, it is more important. Just because something makes us safer isn't a good enough reason to do it.
Shame it doesn't work and lots of nutters can quite easily get hold of guns isn't it? Damn those criminals not obeying the law!
Good on you, I however am not prepared to take one for the team.
yes but just having some hair on the floor is not proof and would just be ignored for the very reason you've given.
If you want it to count as evidence then it will have to have been removed in a struggle, and shedded hair is different to hair ripped out.
Try it and you'll be able to tell the difference.
Skin and hair under fingernails is often the source of DNA in rape/murders.
It's fairly easy to tell if the hair should be thought of as evidence or just "some hair" as the latter would be a massivly obvius sign of it being a fake.
It would be pretty suspicious to find hair from someone who has never been allowed into the house in a robbery. And of course that is not the only dna you could use, blood would be a good choice.
Last edited:
How exactly would it do that? Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence and all that?
To the best of my knowledge, the stored data is: subject's name and force submitting the sample. I'm not even sure it has DoB or address, because I think it relies on the police being able to cross-reference those themselves.
M
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Right up 'till the point where they arrest you because of an error on the system saying it was your DNA at the scene.
For once the EU has done the right thing and "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" is never a good argument.
Here have a Jefferson:
Do you think it would stay like that if it was rolled out as a national database with everyone on it?
Not really, especially if they have been told they arn;t alowed in means that they have been in contact with the victim plenty of chances for hair to be found.
But how are you going to clean the scene of all your dna etc?
And after you've done that why go to the hassle of cleaning it (and the corpse if there was a struggle) and then planting evidence, massive chance of getting caught then.
Notice how nobody has done this so far, when they could use another likley supects DNA, who would probbably be asked for a sample.
No it would be a terrible choice, unless you know the body wont be discovered for weeks etc as the blood would be more coagulated than it should be and certain flora and fauna would have died that shouldn't be dead. Not even getting into blood spatter patterns and how you'd replicate them.
forensics is pretty advanced as they have to determin what DA to record and what to ignor already.
Except they wouldn't arrest you, they would ask you to come in for questioning/provide your whereabouts at the time of the crime, at the very worst ask you to produce a DNA sample which would absolve you completely (actually they may just do that first)
So at most say a day of your time?
It's already a national database. Now you've got to change the data fields to add information for a DB which already has millions of records. FAR harder than just making it bigger (I don't actually know what the theoretical limit on sample numbers is) surely?
M
The data conversion would be a bit of a pita to be honest, it would be easier to just add more records. But if you were to go for a full database of all UK citizens then it would make more sense to have all the details in one place rather than having to cross link to the various forces etc. Especially as you would need somebody other than the police to actually gather the samples.
To be honest the data privacy issues are relatively minor compared to the more serious moral change, I really do feel uncomfortable moving towards a situation where records are kept "just in case" someone commits a crime.