Sir Cliff Joins Fair Campaign......

[10ClarionSt]

.....but I think they should be campaigning for the anonimity to be permanent unless/until someone if found guilty and sentenced. I believe that should be the case for all crime, not just crimes of a sexual nature. I also believe that DNA should not be admissable as evidence and stipulations about it's use should be included in the caution when being arrested, along the lines of "You do not have to provide a sample of DNA, but failure to do so etc..."
I further believe, as stated on here recently, that anyone above the age of criminal responsibility, who becomes deceased, should have their DNA checked against the datbase of unsolved crimes, where such DNA is available.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47502383

[Zacs-Master]

How does ‘anyone above the age of criminal responsibility, who becomes deceased, should have their DNA checked against the datbase of unsolved crimes’

Fit with ‘I also believe that DNA should not be admissable as evidence’

[rockyracoon]

I'm glad you asked that, Zac's, it's been confusing me.

[dannyk13]

10cs, Why on earth do you want to make it harder to convict criminals?

[grumpy01]

Also,when these allegations are found to be false,the Women who "have seen the pound signs" should have their identity revealed.

[ummmm]

DNA should not be admissable? Are you serious?

[THECORBYLOON]

No DNA from folk who are alive but you want it taken from dead folk?

[woofgang]

if dna is not going to be admissable, why do you need to add mention of it to the caution?

[woofgang]

don't forget that DNA evidence assists with establishing innocence as well as guilt.

[ToraToraTora]

why do you want DNA to not be admissible as evidence?

[New Judge]

It would be good if 10CS might come back and help us out because I, along with others, find this post both confusing and puzzling.

DNA matching is the greatest advance in the detection of crime since fingerprints (and is considerably more versatile). Quite why anybody should want evidence provided by it to be inadmissable is a mystery to me.

[agchristie]

^ except in a case like this.

One defendant (Shivers) was convicted and later the appeal court overturned it....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-15820188

[Spicerack]

I agree with the campaign to stop police going on fishing expeditions.

[Canary42]

Many victims of sexual crimes are frightened to report them, and often when they do they are not believed.

The sexual predators (especially "famous" ones like Savile, Weinstein, Harris) love this situation, and anonymity would please them even more because publicity gives their other victims the incentive to report their misdemeanours.

[Spicerack]

And liars.

[ummmm]

Child abusers often follow a pattern so liars are usually weeded out.

[10ClarionSt]

Your DNA is who you are. It's yours and should remain so. Not become accessible to any authority who wants it. It's your right to privacy isn't it? Because someones' DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime. Your right to that privacy ends when you become deceased.

[10ClarionSt]

Canary, only one of those three was convicted.

[dannyk13]

10cs //Your DNA is who you are. It's yours and should remain so.//
So is your blood, and if you want to really silly, so are your fingerprints.Are you going to say that none of this should be used in crime detection?

[fiction-factory]

>Because someones' DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime.
Of course. But if it means they can be included in the investigation at the time then that is helpful. Waiting until after they have died isn't much use- just because someone's DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime, and it's too late to interview them to get more info.

[ToraToraTora]

10CS: "Because someones' DNA is found at a crime scene, doesn't mean they committed the crime." - that is true it's not the holy grail of certainty of guilt but , like finger prints, it's a very useful tool. If someone's DNA is present they'll need to have an explanation of how it got there. To take that investigatory tool away is folly.