With all of the crime and whatnots going on I think that everyone should have DNA samples taken from them at birth, and a DNA testing at local polling stations, and other laerge events. Now before anyone snuffs the idea. Think about it.

There are lots of crime scenes where DNA has been found, but noone to link it to. If the majority of people have DNA on file, then crimes would be easier for police to trace to the purpetrator (spelling).

I would be willing to do this, as would everyone who i have spoken to about this idea. The only people I can see objecting to this idea, are the "human rights" morons. But i could be wrong.

I don't have any objection, It's only a matter of time before this becomes standard practice

If it keeps a few people on the straight and narrow all the better

If it helps to positively identify victims or their aggressors better still

It's already established the innocence of a few people too


So why on earth would anyone want to object? :suspect:

While this may perhaps work, the problem is that DNA testing is still in it infancy and AFAIAA there are some questions as to whether it foolproof or can somehow be easily corrupted.

By using such a system on a wider scale, the risk is that people believe it to be infallible and so could lead to many legal injustices happening. Just imagine that a crime happens and your DNA is said to match that found at the crime scene, you have no alibi and you are wrongly accused of the crime. With no evidence to back you up and a judicial system that relies on DNA testing because of a national database, you would become a victim of the system you advocate.

As for Human rights issues (which you deem moronic) what's stopping someone from taking the details about your DNA and making other assumptions about it. With the realm of biotechnology only gaining power and influence how long is it until government employees are screened for loyalty genes? How long until assumptions are made about you from before birth? I know this is wild speculation but a national DNA database is the start of a very slippery slope leading to a possible police state.

Wilf

I don't have a problem with my DNA being on record. If I had children, i don't suppose I would mind their DNA being taken either.

No system, including fingerprinting is infalible.

Even without DNA evidence, people have wrongly been convicted of crimes - DNA evidence may or may not help to distinguish the innocent from the guilty...

i agree that everyone should be DNA'd at birth. only the criminals have something to fear. technology has moved on and is advanced. when DNA is forensically tested, it is graded - fair to moderate to conclusive.

I read a sign on the tram this morning that said if you spit at tram staff they will find you by your DNA. Now, I watch CSI and I know you need a sample to match to, so what are they going to match your spit against ?

the dna found would be put into a database and compared with DNA taken from persons who have been previously arrested. If the culprit has never been arrested before, then obviously there is nothing to match to. However, should the culprit be arrested at some time in the future (which is likely if he goes around spitting at tram drivers), then his DNA would be taken and put on to the database, and any previous crimes where DNA has been left behind would come to light (including the spitting of the tram driver!)

I'm not usually known here as a criminally minded, bleeding hearty, human rights loving tree hugger but this idea concerns me.

First of all, there is an implicit assumption that everyone is going to do something wrong. A sort of expectation of guilt.

Secondly, whilst DNA profiling is more reliable than it was and will continue to improve, there is still room for doubt. And there are also the security and data integrity issues. If you get your name associated with the wrong DNA, and the first time it shows up is on a murder rap, then it's a bit unfortunate.

There is then the issue of tracing someone if you have their DNA. Whilst you can track most people through Tax, Eletoral Roll, etc. data what about people who live 'off the grid'? Homeless, drifters, etc.?

Which brings us to people coing in from outside the UK - either legally or illegally. I assume that for legal immigrants (and tourists?? ) we take a DNA swab on entry? Illegals - we won't get the chance.

Interesting idea, but I'd want some SERIOUS thought putting in to the practicalities of it.

Joe

National DNA database?

The complete DNA sequence? After all that is the only truly unique data.

It will take a grand total of a week before this database is compromised.

Unlike a fingerprint, your DNA is a lot more than simply a method of identification. In fact your DNA tells someone more about you than meeting you ever would.

It is now the law that if you are arrested - whether or not you are charged - your DNA MUST be taken (consent is not necessary) and it is kept regardless of whether you are charged or found guilty of the offence.

No, I would not want my DNA taken. I do not not break the law so see no reason why anyone should have a right to take my DNA profile.

I may be cynical, but enough information is held about people, often without their knowledge or consent, already and I would prefer to keep the government out of the private domain as much as possible.

Oh and I wouldn't want to give my fingerprints either.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
National DNA database?

The complete DNA sequence? After all that is the only truly unique data.

It will take a grand total of a week before this database is compromised.

Unlike a fingerprint, your DNA is a lot more than simply a method of identification. In fact your DNA tells someone more about you than meeting you ever would.

That was another issue.

Take a sample at birth, and how long will it be before people start peerring at gene sequences to see whether there's any commonality amongst criminals? Can we detect the bad 'uns at birth?

I don't believe we have the wisdom to handle the ethics of such a move.

Which probably means the Government will do it by next Thursday.

Joe

Originally posted by nick2
I read a sign on the tram this morning that said if you spit at tram staff they will find you by your DNA. Now, I watch CSI and I know you need a sample to match to, so what are they going to match your spit against ?

mmmmm - best stop that spitting behaviour then. Just continue with the flicking bogies.

DNA database. Initial thoughts are yes it is a good idea. If youv'e not done anything naughty what have you got to worry about?

But then it crossed my mind there's too much info about ourselves in our DNA. Could it be open for misuse? I am thinking of medical illnesses/identifying peoples 'real' parents etc... I think I am being alittle OTT but I don't fully understand DNA.

If I get horribly killed by terrorists etc etc, I'm only guessing my family would like to know it's mainly my body parts in the coffin.........

While no system is infallible I think DNA testing is more likely to prevent miscarriages of justice than cause them

It's only my 'umble opinion but don't the benefits outweigh the paranoia?

Originally posted by chickmonk
It is now the law that if you are arrested - whether or not you are charged - your DNA MUST be taken (consent is not necessary) and it is kept regardless of whether you are charged or found guilty of the offence.

No, I would not want my DNA taken. I do not not break the law so see no reason why anyone should have a right to take my DNA profile.

I may be cynical, but enough information is held about people, often without their knowledge or consent, already and I would prefer to keep the government out of the private domain as much as possible.

Oh and I wouldn't want to give my fingerprints either.

:o re your first paragraph! I didn't know that! I think that's disgraceful - taking DNA samples automatically whether or not you're even charged with anything, and especially keeping them when you're found to be innocent. If true, that's a gross violation of human rights.

Why aren't the Civil Liberties people making a huge fuss about this? Where are the Human Rights lawyers when they're needed?

And Chickmonk - I agree totally with the rest of your posting.

I'm horrified :suspect:

StarSparkle

Originally posted by yosser_huges
With all of the crime and whatnots going on I think that everyone should have DNA samples taken from them at birth, and a DNA testing at local polling stations, and other laerge events. Now before anyone snuffs the idea. Think about it.

There are lots of crime scenes where DNA has been found, but noone to link it to. If the majority of people have DNA on file, then crimes would be easier for police to trace to the purpetrator (spelling).

I would be willing to do this, as would everyone who i have spoken to about this idea. The only people I can see objecting to this idea, are the "human rights" morons. But i could be wrong.

yeah, only a moron would object to being treat like a criminal at birth.

Originally posted by Splodge_CRB
While no system is infallible I think DNA testing is more likely to prevent miscarriages of justice than cause them


Until someone shakes out a bag of your hair and skin flakes at the scene of a crime.

If you were horribly killed by terrorists then the police could test your dna against your toothbrush or similar. No need to have it on a database already (i know this from csi).

We don't know whether the benefits would outweigh the paranoia/cynicism. But as I know I'm not commiting any crimes I know that my DNA is of no use to the police. So why hand it over?? I think I'll err on the side of caution...

Originally posted by teeb
i agree that everyone should be DNA'd at birth. only the criminals have something to fear. technology has moved on and is advanced. when DNA is forensically tested, it is graded - fair to moderate to conclusive.

the cry of people trying to impose more surveillance and restrictions on law abiding people everywhere.

Only the guilty will have anything to fear.

It could just be that the non guilty don't like having the assumption of guilt made, or being monitored. Would you consent to permanent gps tagging, just so that you can be ruled out whenever a crime is committed? WHy not, you have nothing to fear, unless you break the law.

The whole idea seems rather 1984, big brotheresque to me. I have no desire to have my every move watched. Im with cyclone on this one. Most people don't break the law, therefore why do the police need their dna?

Originally posted by yosser_huges
With all of the crime and whatnots going on I think that everyone should have DNA samples taken from them at birth, and a DNA testing at local polling stations, and other laerge events. Now before anyone snuffs the idea. Think about it.

There are lots of crime scenes where DNA has been found, but noone to link it to. If the majority of people have DNA on file, then crimes would be easier for police to trace to the purpetrator (spelling).

I would be willing to do this, as would everyone who i have spoken to about this idea. The only people I can see objecting to this idea, are the "human rights" morons. But i could be wrong.

"human rights moron" here yosser!

Your argument is superficially attractive. But you need to think your idea through more logically. Whilst a mandatory DNA sample, taken at birth, would indeed give the police a national data base, that would only assist the police in identifying an alleged offender. It would not, by itself, identify the whereabouts of an alleged offender. To do that, everyone would need, at the very least, an identity card. Even an ID card wouldn't necessarily lead to the arrest of an alleged offender. So, to be as sure as possible of apprehending alleged culprits, why not electronically tag everyone? And to be extra sure, let's expand the CCTV system to monitor every street corner and front door.

So, let's start to add up the costs shall we. ID cards - current estimates start at £93 per person, payable by the individual.
DNA samples probably cost a minimum of £20 per person, plus the cost of running the national data base. Electronic tagging - I'm guessing around £50 minimum per person, not including the vast army of people needed to monitor people's movements. Extra CCTV surveillance - yet more millions and millions.

But let's not mind the financial costs, this system will ensure the capture of just about every alleged criminal. But with such sophisticated systems of identifying each and every one of us, and our every movement, we could now rely on DNA & tagging evidence as proof of guilt. We could abolish courts, juries, JPs, judges, solicitors, etc. In fact, we could probably reduce offending figures, and the crime statistics would plummet.

For the privilege of giving a painless DNA sample at birth, forking out for a biometric ID card, being tagged, and having our every movement viewed on CCTV, we could reduce crime at a stroke.

What a wonderful world this would be. I can't think why I am a "human rights moron". Can you?