DNA Database

Status
Not open for further replies.
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Why is the police holding a database of DNA a bad thing?
Click to expand...

Because it presumes guilt and the cornerstone of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty.

I have no issues at all with a database of those found guilty of a crime but become much more wary when it becomes a database of those that the police have had any contact with.

It is a bit of essential liberty I am not happy giving up for a bit of extra security.
 
Last edited:
How does it presume guilt, if everyone in the UK is on it? All it lets the police do is find out who was at the scene of a crime easier. Its perfectly possibble to be both at the scene of a crime and innocent you know.
 
Do you not agree that our civil liberties are being eroded bit by bit? It seems to me that this ruling is good in that it puts the brakes on this governments desire to control all aspects of our lives. There is also the data security issue. Would you be happy with your DNA being lost by government with all of the implications that follow?
 
Good. Now the way is clear to hold everyone's DNA on a database, whether they are a convicted criminal or not...
 
Brian Stuart said:
Do you not agree that our civil liberties are being eroded bit by bit?
Click to expand...
No not really, you're still free to do everything that you were able to do 50 years ago.

It seems to me that this ruling is good in that it puts the brakes on this governments desire to control all aspects of our lives.
Click to expand...
To me it looks like the government wants to control the security of our lives, not what we actually do. This a isnt a bad thing.

There is also the data security issue. Would you be happy with your DNA being lost by government with all of the implications that follow?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd imagine that it would be hard to keep my actual DNA on a disc, but rather they've have my DNA profile, and I really can't see how some third party getting their hands on my profile would affect me in the slightest. Its not as if you can engineer someones DNA (say to plant at the scene of a crime) from their profile is it?
 
do_ron_ron said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm

The European Court of Human Rights has voted that it is breaching human rights to hold DNA of innocent people. Another good decision to come from European justice. It seems that the UK is not bothered about its citizen's rights but thankfully Europe is.:)
Click to expand...

Great news :) I'm fundamentally disappointed that the law lords didn't throw it out first (just shows yet more need for a written constitution to protect us), but at least the ECHR did something useful :D
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
How does it presume guilt, if everyone in the UK is on it? All it lets the police do is find out who was at the scene of a crime easier. Its perfectly possibble to be both at the scene of a crime and innocent you know.
Click to expand...

Simplest point, it presumes guilt by holding information that there is no earthly right or need to possess. If I commit a crime then by all means take my DNA, if I'm suspected of a crime take my DNA to prove or disprove my guilt (but you'd damn well better delete it after an appropriate time period if I'm found not guilty) but to take it on the presumption that I might do something? Get knotted.

DNA evidence is often viewed as some "gold standard" of proof when in actual fact it can be wrong, either because of flaws in collection, flaws in interpretation or occasionally that someone else shares the same traits.

Good on the ECHR for this decision, shame on Jacqui Smith.
 
To name but three:-

The right to protest near parliament
The right to take photographs in public places without fear of harrasment by the police
Detention without trial.

Have you had your head in the sand these past 10 years Lapin?

Sure, they may not affect you, but to me that just smacks of the "I'm alright Jack, screw the rest" kind of apathy that this country is riddled with.
 
semi-pro waster said:
Simplest point, it presumes guilt by holding information that there is no earthly right or need to possess. If I commit a crime then by all means take my DNA, if I'm suspected of a crime take my DNA to prove or disprove my guilt (but you'd damn well better delete it after an appropriate time period if I'm found not guilty) but to take it on the presumption that I might do something? Get knotted.

DNA evidence is often viewed as some "gold standard" of proof when in actual fact it can be wrong, either because of flaws in collection, flaws in interpretation or occasionally that someone else shares the same traits.

Good on the ECHR for this decision, shame on Jacqui Smith.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the really simple fact that DNA evidence only identifies you as being at the scene of a crime, not having committed a crime.
 
Le_Petit_Lapin said:
Is there some things in particular that stand out for you? :)
Click to expand...

"In his ten years as Prime Minister, Tony Blair has introduced a new law every three-and-a- quarter hours, new research reveals."

Honestly where have you been? Think about all the laws pertaining to terrorism was passed in blind panic post 9/11 that now grant police crazy powers at the drop of a hat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom