DNA Database

[Brian Stuart]

Next you'll be complaining the government knowing all our names and addreses is wrong

I see this akin to the argument of gun ownership in the UK in some ways:-
- I'd love to own a gun, but I know the cost of me owning a gun is allowing every nutter, theif and rapist to also have one. I'm not willing for that to happen, so I'm happy to go without that right, and not have a gun.
- I'd love the government not to have my (& everyone elses) DNA on a national database. However, I know this means that a lot of serious crimes go unpunished. So, I'm willing to go without this right, and have my DNA on a database.

ps: As for your last point, I'd be more worried abuot my name and address being lost than my DNA profile

]

Please point out where in my post I mentioned name and address. Also the comparison between gun ownership and a DNA database is just flawed.I have refrained from posting a roll eyes

 

[NeilF]

]

Please point out where in my post I mentioned name and address. Also the comparison between gun ownership and a DNA database is just flawed.I have refrained from posting a roll eyes

Ummm... Where in my post did I mentioned you mentioned name and address? I simply stated I would be more concerned about my name and address falling into the wrong hands than my DNA profile?

How is my comparison between gun ownership and a DNA database flawed? Each is losing a benefit for the greater good. I would like to own a gun, but don't on the basis society is better off without them. I would like my DNA not to be in a database, but am happy for it to be in one on the basis society is better off.

<----- Me refraining from rolling my eyes.

 

[Greebo]

Oh no, not my spelling, my Achilles heel.

No, don't mention that.............

 

[Brian Stuart]

Ummm... Where in my post did I mentioned you mentioned name and address? I simply stated I would be more concerned about my name and address falling into the wrong hands than my DNA profile?

How is my comparison between gun ownership and a DNA database flawed? Each is losing a benefit for the greater good. I would like to own a gun, but don't on the basis society is better off without them. I would like my DNA not to be in a database, but am happy for it to be in one on the basis society is better off.

<----- Me refraining from rolling my eyes.

There is a huge discussion to be had about civil liberties and the erosion of them. My name and address could be used for nefarious purposes as perhaps my DNA couldn't, but my objections are on more philosophical lines. I resent the implication (not your implication BTW ) that everyone may commit an offense in the future and therefore we should allow our DNA to be stored.
I am still not sure that the gun comparison is valid however, as a gun can be used to inflict harm that DNA cannot and equating owning one with DNA not being on a database is comparing oranges with apples.

 

[Nix]

What an excellent ruling.

Ignore all the foolhardy and dated nationalist sentiment; here is why we joined the EU. This is the interference people are so scared of. Amusing really. Would we have had the option to tackle these ridiculous erosions without the ability to take it to a supranational level? I don't want to turn this into another debate about the EU, but the simple matter is that it's a confederation of sovereign states. We have sacrificed the most minute of sovereignty (as observed here) but it keeps us in check, and good thing too. I no longer trust our own government, they're not scared of us. It reeks of tyranny. Jacqui Smith is no politician, at least not in my eyes, and certainly not in my name. She should hang her head in shame and get the **** out of office!

Did anyone else raise a wry ironic smile at this?

The Home Office has already set up a "contingency planning group" to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favour of the men.

They just don't know when to quit. Hopefully the ECHR will come down on our government again and we can finally get our house in order.

 

[NeilF]

but my objections are on more philosophical lines.

Oh! Just as long as we let all those preventable murders and crime go ahead for a good reason then...


Simple hypothetical...

Q1: My DNA is not on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

Q2: My DNA is on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

While (2) is obviously not concrete deterrent, it would no doubt prove a deterrent to many. And possibly, at least, prevent further repeat offenses...

 

[Tefal]

Oh! Just as long as we let all those preventable murders and crime go ahead for a good reason then...

Q1: My DNA is not on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

Q2: My DNA is on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

It wouldn't really enter into their head if they where serious about it. They might take some extra precautions etc but they;d still do it.

 

[Nix]

Oh! Just as long as we let all those preventable murders and crime go ahead for a good reason then...


Simple hypothetical...

Q1: My DNA is not on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

Q2: My DNA is on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

While (2) is obviously not concrete deterrent, it would no doubt prove a deterrent to many. And possibly, at least, prevent further repeat offenses...

Do you honestly think that if someone is that way inclined to physically rape someone anyway, that a DNA database will be at the forefront of their cognitive reasoning?

 

[NeilF]

It wouldn't really enter into their head if they where serious about it. They might take some extra precautions etc but they;d still do it.

Indeed, but:-
1) It would undoubtable put off some.
2) Possibly prevent further offenses.

 

[NeilF]

Do you honestly think that is someone is that way inclined to physically rape someone anyway, that a DNA database will be at the forefront of their cognitive reasoning?

I don't know... I personally suspect it could. But, even if it didn't, it might stop the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7th attempts? (ie: there's a far far better chance of them being caught)

 

[NeilF]

Open question... If your DNA was on a database, do you think you might think twice about stealing a car, breaking into a property, raping someone, murdering someone?

For many I suspect it might stop them....

But even if it didn't it could mean they wouldn't get to do it again...

 

[semi-pro waster]

Oh! Just as long as we let all those preventable murders and crime go ahead for a good reason then...


Simple hypothetical...

Q1: My DNA is not on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

Q2: My DNA is on a database, shall I rape this women in an alley?

While (2) is obviously not concrete deterrent, it would no doubt prove a deterrent to many. And possibly, at least, prevent further repeat offenses...

Rather as Tefal says, you're assuming a logical thought process here where none necessarily exists.

Your preventable murders and crime line sounds very nice as a soundbite but it is rather more difficult to prove. But even if it was true and you could prove a reduction in crime from this DNA database I still wouldn't be in favour of it, it is an unjustifiable and unwarranted intrusion into my privacy and upsets the fundamental assumptions on which our judicial system is based - my innocence is called into question when I'm accused of committing a crime, not before.

 

[NeilF]

Rather as Tefal says, you're assuming a logical thought process here where none necessarily exists.

Your preventable murders and crime line sounds very nice as a soundbite but it is rather more difficult to prove. But even if it was true and you could prove a reduction in crime from this DNA database I still wouldn't be in favour of it, it is an unjustifiable and unwarranted intrusion into my privacy and upsets the fundamental assumptions on which our judicial system is based - my innocence is called into question when I'm accused of committing a crime, not before.

So, you concur:-
1) There might be a small premise of some deterrent?
2) It must help solve some cases?

As such, it can only reduce crime and probably even save lives?

So, for no logical reason (you've not listed one?), you'd let crimes go ahead, and people get murdered, just for an unfounded 'feeling' you have?


I do not intend this to sound confrontation, but the only argument we really seem to be getting against the database is personal feelings... So this is what I have to question the merit of. Can you understand how that can sound selfish? I'll let crimes occur and people die, so I can feel nice, no other reason?


I absolutely concur in an ideal world, we want, 'my innocence is called into question when I'm accused of committing a crime, not before'. BUT, this is not an ideal world, and I'm willing for forego what appears to be just a centiment to save lives etc...

 

[Nix]

Is it really worth the sum they're spending and the loss of its citizen's liberty just on the small potential of a 'premise'?

Have you ever considered what could happen if (god forbid) those in office became more crooked? Having a DNA database not only fundementally changes the nature of conviction (presumed guilty) but it also irrecovably alters the very relationship between gentry and state.

 

[semi-pro waster]

So, you concur:-
1) There might be a small premise of some deterrent?
2) It must help solve some cases?

As such, it can only reduce crime and probably even save lives?

So, for no logical reason (you've not listed one?), you'd let crimes go ahead, and people get murdered, just for a 'feeling'?

No, that's not exactly what I've said but if you feel that undermining the foundations of our legal system is not a logical reason to oppose it then I'm not entirely sure what I can say beyond this that would convince you.

1) It might do but then again so might chemical castration of anyone who shows inappropriate sexual behaviour - where is your line drawn as to what you find acceptable in terms of deterrant vs the harm you've caused in the prevention, potentially to innocent citizens.
2) So would microchipping everyone and getting people to report into their local police station at hourly intervals - is that an acceptable trade-off?

My freedom is worth rather more to me than a feeling of apparant safety (note that this is different to actual safety) that might occur from a database of DNA.

 

[NeilF]

No, that's not exactly what I've said but if you feel that undermining the foundations of our legal system is not a logical reason to oppose it then I'm not entirely sure what I can say beyond this that would convince you.

1) It might do but then again so might chemical castration of anyone who shows inappropriate sexual behaviour - where is your line drawn as to what you find acceptable in terms of deterrant vs the harm you've caused in the prevention, potentially to innocent citizens.
2) So would microchipping everyone and getting people to report into their local police station at hourly intervals - is that an acceptable trade-off?

My freedom is worth rather more to me than a feeling of apparant safety (note that this is different to actual safety) that might occur from a database of DNA.

Once again, we see people going off into the world of fantasy to prop up their point... Chemical castration? What? microchipping? huh? Report into their local police station at hourly intervals? What?

Again, the only argument you are putting foreward is some notion of liberties being eroded by some information being stored against your name with the view of making the country safer.

What about the liberties of people to go about their daily lives and not be attacked and murdered, or their property stolen? This could all be reduced by what you are trying to prevent?

Again, if you feel liberties are being eroded, explain why. But not just by some moralistic point that in reality is just a sentence. If a database held your DNA it would change your life how? It wouldn't... Other than possibly making you safer...

 

[RDM]

Again, if you feel liberties are being eroded, explain why. But not just by some moralistic point that in reality is just a sentence. If a database held your DNA it would change your life how? It wouldn't... Other than possibly making you safer...

People have tried to explain why about a dozen times and you just don't get it. So why bother wasting time doing it again?

 

[Glaucus]

Frankly anyone who agrees to dna database, terrorist laws and anything similar are idiots. It is never good to remove your civil liberties. You can never know what this or a future government will do or criminalise.

You can not guarantee this data will not be tampered with, sold or stolen.

what happens when the government decides they want to sale it to insurance companies, or employees or anyone else.

A lot of you need your heads read.

Edit - oops was meant to post in the other thread.

 

[RDM]

what happens when the government decides they want to sale it to insurance companies, or employees or anyone else.

It really wouldn't do anyone much good, your DNA profile has no real medical info at all. Unless you happen to be related to a potential employer

 

[Glaucus]

It really wouldn't do anyone much good, your DNA profile has no real medical info at all. Unless you happen to be related to a potential employer

Good point, but how about when they upgrade the dna database to actually have the entire string and not just markers.