If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
DNA data storage
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178193.stm
what do you think?
i personally think any DNA taken should be kept and used in fighting crime. at the moment any DNA taken from victims etc cannot be used to match to a crime except for elimination purposes. if all DNA that was taken was kept on police systems, it would undoubtedly help reduce crime and identify criminals. though i realize the issue is storing it for life for those who have been arrested. yet it undoubtedly helps in identification and elimination purposes - it would be so much harder when there is very little to go on except for DNA to bring criminals to justice if we changed the system and only kept DNA on file of those who have already been convicted.
what do you think?
i personally think any DNA taken should be kept and used in fighting crime. at the moment any DNA taken from victims etc cannot be used to match to a crime except for elimination purposes. if all DNA that was taken was kept on police systems, it would undoubtedly help reduce crime and identify criminals. though i realize the issue is storing it for life for those who have been arrested. yet it undoubtedly helps in identification and elimination purposes - it would be so much harder when there is very little to go on except for DNA to bring criminals to justice if we changed the system and only kept DNA on file of those who have already been convicted.
any one else think thats a bit too politically correct! i'm not quite sure how race is an issue with it tbh. the whole purpose is to store DNA of those arrested for criminal activity. race has nothing to do with it.with a third of all black males currently on it. And people are on it for life,"
0
Comments
As for the race point, it's probably just to reinforce the belief of some people that black people tend to commit more crimes than white. A pretty pointless thing to say as it doesn't matter on the colour of their skin, the issue is crime.
Whilst they're at it, they can also wipe the names of every single child that, to their utter disgrace, has been added on over the years.
And as for the disproportionate levels of black men on the database, it reinforces the idea of institutional racism in the police force. 'The DNA profiles of nearly four in 10 black men in the UK are on the police's national database - compared with fewer than one in 10 white men.'
Why is that a bad thing? Like I said above it could save you a lot hassle if you were a suspect. If your DNA was stored on their database they could easily eliminate you from the investigation.
Then you obviously trust the state a lot more than I do.
If I were a suspect, then I'd happily give a sample of DNA provided it would be destroyed after a certain length of time. I don't buy into the whole 'if you haven't got anything to hide...' mentality that is sending us straight down the path to a surveillance state.
Only one bit of DNA is one bit of DNA too many. I think you just proved my point with your example. Like I said, if I was a suspect, then sure, I'd have with a DNA test because it would either dis/prove my innocence.
I'm not a suspect, so they don't need it. The state already knows far too much about me as it is, I don't want them getting their greedy little hands on my genetic makeup too.
That wasn't my point. What I was saying is there is no harm in them having our DNA because it is not like they can obtain such things as bank details from DNA.
bank details are somewhat different...
i think the advantages of storing it outweigh the disadvantages by a long shot.
some races are arrested more than others!
:yes: it would seem so from the article and that might be the statistics. but no one gets arrested unless there are reasonable grounds for that arrest to be made and that has absolutely nothing to do with skin colour its about crime not race.
i havent broken any law i refuse to have my DNA stored, since it assumes i'll break the law, now tell me i have to.....
DNA evidence need to be accompanied with context, since it is very circumstancial
i'd agree with anyone convicted of a violent crime having their DNA stored - i'd also provide a dna sample for a one off test to rule myself out if it were a crime i knew i could be a possible suspect, at my discretion and in the knowledge it wont be used afterwards for other possible crimes
someone who has't been charged hasn't done anything wrong legally and shouldn't have it stored
Sorry but that seems like a view seen through a pair of rose glasses to me. Our police force are just as corrupt as any other, and people can and do get arrested without adequate grounds, and I'm sure there may be forum members on here who have experienced this. I'm sure theres a Telegraph report about somewhere which reckons that our police force is as corrupt as those in third world countries.
i'm sure there are many people who would tell you they 'haven't done anything wrong' as they are carted off to the nick. but hell... if what i said before was wrong you'd be well within your rights to sue the force for wrongful arrest. some people are arrested and are innocent from the outset fair enough but any arrest is made on the grounds of reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.
If you do door to door enquiries, 99% of people won't have seen anything, the other 1% won't have seen anything of any use. CCTV, despite it's percieved prevalence in our society doesn't cover every street, it doesn't cover every alleyway. Once murdered, a victim (unsurprisingly) won't be able to point out their attacker in a lineup (which can only be made once we have a suspect anyway).
If you have a national DNA database, or at least keep DNA of people once it's been taken then crimes like the above become solveable.
And the people who have suggested that a DNA file can be stolen and misused, don't worry. Your actual DNA isn't stored on file. The digital fingerprint of it is. The police and forensic science service don't have rooms and rooms full of little vials with a hair, or drop of blood in them.
Why? You've got to give a better answer than "I don't want the government knowing lots about me" or "it infringes my civil liberties".
The government, and by extension the police can find out whatever they want about you, regardless of wether you've been convicted of a crime or not. We don't, because frankly you're not that interesting
It depends on the area. If your primary beat is an inner-city area with a high proportion of ethnic minorities, then yes those races will be arrested more often, because they will be the ones comitting the crime, it's down to numbers not race.
In an area where it's an even mix and black/asian people are being stopped more often then obviously something is wrong.
raflmfao
The crimes the police are arresting for, you mean?
Why, just because you don't want to try to respond to it?
If people are being stopped JUST because of their race then it should be stamped out completely, same goes for being arrested.
No, because it's the same answer everyone gives whenever the government tries to do something like this.
I asked him why he didn't want his DNA on file. Saying you're worried about what the government knows about you isn't an acceptable one, in my opinion. Worrying about misuse of information isn't valid either, what would be the point?
Lastly, DNA isn't the sole evidence used in a prosecution, the CPS don't rely JUST on that.
Why are these not valid arguments? As a minarchist and libertarian, I believe the state should be kept to an absolute minimum. As it is, the thing is far too intrusive and cumbersome without having my DNA or biometric data and the like.
Different views are not unacceptable, just different.
True, but that's why I said it wasn't acceptable in my opinion
But, I'm asking why people, with views such as yourselves think that DNA being kept on file is a bad idea.
It sits there, waiting to be compared against DNA that is found at a crime scene. Why is that a bad thing?
I've said in another post that the government and police can find out pretty much whatever they want to about you, having your DNA won't make that any harder or easier. It will mean more criminals who would previously have got away with a crime, getting caught and convicted for it.
:yes: