National DNA Database Compulsary?

[Lucifer Box]

There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?

4. Argh, I could go on forever but have lost the will in the face of this creeping fascism.

[daviejones]

Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm

No, Next.

[DimPrawn]

There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?

4. Argh, I could go on forever but have lost the will in the face of this creeping fascism.

DNA holds clues to your health and well being.

When insurance companies, banks, employers and the like start offering New Lie large sums of money for access to the data, you can bet they will get access, and you will become a victim of DNA discrimination.

Also, when you are suspected of not voting labour, not paying your "fair" share of tax, or look a bit like a "terrorist", you might find you DNA at a crime scene. Know what I mean?

[Lucifer Box]

No, Next.

No reason to rest easy. We already have the largest DNA database in the world containing many records, including those of children, who have never been charged with or cautioned for any offence.

The police already have the power to forcibly take a DNA sample from you at any time as they no longer have to provide you with a reason for arrest or indeed have one themselves. It is no longer a requirement to suspect a crime to arrest someone, it can be done merely if the arresting officer believes it is "necessary".

[Troll]

There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?

All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

[BrilloPad]

All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

contender for post of the week?

certainly if anything happened to my kids I would (probably) change my mind instantly. But I have been on the receiving end of a government with no morals just because I dont like being screwed over when I got divorced.

One could argue that freedom is just the freedom to commit crime. We should all be tagged and monitored lest we should suddenly become a criminal.

I would also change my mind if I was made prime minister.

[Marina]

No, Next.

Sometimes a terse dismissive response is funny, but in a serious discussion like this it just looks a bit sad.

Care to elaborate on "No", or are you one of the self-deluding "nothing to fear if you're innocent" brigade?

[tay]

Sometimes a terse dismissive response is funny, but in a serious discussion like this it just looks a bit sad.

[Troll]

contender for post of the week?

certainly if anything happened to my kids I would (probably) change my mind instantly. But I have been on the receiving end of a government with no morals just because I dont like being screwed over when I got divorced.

One could argue that freedom is just the freedom to commit crime. We should all be tagged and monitored lest we should suddenly become a criminal.

I would also change my mind if I was made prime minister.

Hence my earlier post in seeing both sides of the argument.

There seems to be a large amount of old but still open crimes being 'soved' by revisiting in the light of advances in DNA technique especially 'familiar' DNA where a match can be extrapolated from a familiy relative - must be a good thing to give closure to a long running grievance.

The chap who was only aquitted of murder after 18? years because DNA testing proved he couldn't be responsible - & the real murderer caught because a motoring offence resulted in a sample - have to say I expect both parties would have views on the matter

My gut reaction is to say no to national sampling as I have done nothing wrong - but if because of this someone went undetected to commit another crime is that right?

[Marina]

All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

Someone like that would almost certainly have committed some violent offence in the past and be on the DNA database anyway. Hardly anyone disputes that serious criminals convicted of violent offences should have their DNA retained for a long time or indefinitely.

And with assurances that samples wouldn't be kept, or used in any other less serious investigation[*], there'd be every reason for responsible people, or even suspects, not on the database to volunteer samples and narrow down the suspects.

[*] Not many would if DNA testing was being used for everything, including frivolous purposes like the example someone mentioned earlier of testing fag butts and litter found in the street.

It might not seem like it, but there is a difference between this and keeping samples of everyone to test at will - One puts trust in citizens to cooperate, and the other treats them like children (as OwlHoot mentioned earlier).