Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I wouldn't really object if everybody had to be on the database, it would put me out a little if I decided to turn to a life of crime, but other than that I can't imagine it would do me any harm. I would never campaign for it though and nor wiuld I object to people thinking differently. What do you think Loosehead?
As with any information-related issue, this is not a simple one-dimensional debate.
On the one hand you have the possibility that you could improve the detection rates for many crimes. Clearly, this is of benefit to society and many may view the fact that they are unlikely to commit an offence themselves as a reason not to object.
On the other hand, you have a situation that would completely redefine the notion of freedom in society.
You have justifiable fears about scope-creep.
If I am an insurer, I am essentially a gambler. I am betting that the chances of someone costing me more money through making a claim are less than the chances of me being able to roll around naked in piles of fifty pound notes paid in premiums. If I can decrease the odds of a successful claim then I will. If I could use DNA to screen out people with a high chance of dying early and thus a claim against life cover, then I will. Is it beneficial to society that this happens, if it means many people left in poverty because they are unable to get insurance?
You have the potential for error or fraud.
On balance, I think it's okay to retain the details of the guilty, but not the innocent, and there are legitimate concerns about the present disproportionate representation of some groups - black men, in particular.
However, perhaps a more pertinent point is whether we can possible afford such a system, particularly given the wonderful success of other existing public sector IT projects of substantially smaller scale?
On the one hand you have the possibility that you could improve the detection rates for many crimes. Clearly, this is of benefit to society and many may view the fact that they are unlikely to commit an offence themselves as a reason not to object.
On the other hand, you have a situation that would completely redefine the notion of freedom in society.
You have justifiable fears about scope-creep.
If I am an insurer, I am essentially a gambler. I am betting that the chances of someone costing me more money through making a claim are less than the chances of me being able to roll around naked in piles of fifty pound notes paid in premiums. If I can decrease the odds of a successful claim then I will. If I could use DNA to screen out people with a high chance of dying early and thus a claim against life cover, then I will. Is it beneficial to society that this happens, if it means many people left in poverty because they are unable to get insurance?
You have the potential for error or fraud.
On balance, I think it's okay to retain the details of the guilty, but not the innocent, and there are legitimate concerns about the present disproportionate representation of some groups - black men, in particular.
However, perhaps a more pertinent point is whether we can possible afford such a system, particularly given the wonderful success of other existing public sector IT projects of substantially smaller scale?
I think there's another problem to it - the main reason being used in favour of it is crime detection. Surely that's open to abuse. After all, if I committed a murder then made sure there was someone else's blood all over the scene, surely that's me off the hook and them done for isn't it? All in the name of 'it was their DNA everywhere' - simplified argument I know, but no system is infalible.
Can't see the point of having it just for "criminals" because haven't they been caught already????
If a sample of everones DNA was taken (at birth ideally) sexual crimes would virtually disappear as it is literally impossible to carry out a sexual assualt without leaving any. If you are law abiding there is nothing to fear.
When people are beaten up or even murdered there is always dna left but if you ain't got it on file what good is it?
If a sample of everones DNA was taken (at birth ideally) sexual crimes would virtually disappear as it is literally impossible to carry out a sexual assualt without leaving any. If you are law abiding there is nothing to fear.
When people are beaten up or even murdered there is always dna left but if you ain't got it on file what good is it?
Question:
Your child/close family member is the victim of a serious assault. DNA database makes detection rate 50% greater. Would you still bleat that it is infringement of your civil liberties?
Exactly how is me supplying my DNA or carrying an ID an invasion of my liberties?
I suppose you would all ban CCTV as well because that captures you god knows how many times per day.
Your child/close family member is the victim of a serious assault. DNA database makes detection rate 50% greater. Would you still bleat that it is infringement of your civil liberties?
Exactly how is me supplying my DNA or carrying an ID an invasion of my liberties?
I suppose you would all ban CCTV as well because that captures you god knows how many times per day.
If it was law to carry one then you carry it.
If it cut down on the petty crime, thieving and blatant drug dealing by where I live then good.
I'm still waiting for a valid reason as to why it is an infringement of our civil liberties. If you are law abiding the police are not likely to stop you, burger me they are already understaffed so you think there are goin g to be ID card patrols??
If someone was hanging about on a street corner at midnight looking dodgy then he would get approached, no ID card you get nicked.
The problem being what exactly???
If it cut down on the petty crime, thieving and blatant drug dealing by where I live then good.
I'm still waiting for a valid reason as to why it is an infringement of our civil liberties. If you are law abiding the police are not likely to stop you, burger me they are already understaffed so you think there are goin g to be ID card patrols??
If someone was hanging about on a street corner at midnight looking dodgy then he would get approached, no ID card you get nicked.
The problem being what exactly???
Don't you think that if you weren't carrying it you would have time to produce it at your local police station?
If you think that you will get a criminal record for not carrying one then you are an even thicker tw@t than you come accross as.
The DNA database helps catch someone who has seriously harmed a member of your family but you dont want it to count as the attackers liberties have been infringed by him giving a sample in the first place. yeah right.
If you think that you will get a criminal record for not carrying one then you are an even thicker tw@t than you come accross as.
The DNA database helps catch someone who has seriously harmed a member of your family but you dont want it to count as the attackers liberties have been infringed by him giving a sample in the first place. yeah right.
Currently the proposal is that carrying it would not be mandatory but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that that is a chocolate teapot of a situation.
"Yeah sure I'll pop in with my ID card!"
Ex - MI5 head Stella Remmington has already called ID cards "Useless"
And generally I find that opinions from people of that calibre are more relevant credible than those from people on message boads who resort to calling people thick tw@ts when they start to lose the argument.
Bye for now, enjoy living in your crime-rife neighbourhood!
"Yeah sure I'll pop in with my ID card!"
Ex - MI5 head Stella Remmington has already called ID cards "Useless"
And generally I find that opinions from people of that calibre are more relevant credible than those from people on message boads who resort to calling people thick tw@ts when they start to lose the argument.
Bye for now, enjoy living in your crime-rife neighbourhood!
ReverandFunksexual crimes would virtually disappear as it is literally impossible to carry out a sexual assualt without leaving any. If you are law abiding there is nothing to fear.
Ridiculous - people would still carry on committing these crimes and claim (as in rape cases) that it was consensual.
Please name me one IT project (and bear in mind that the database will be an IT project) that this government have done correctly (and securely)
Just one.
The government can't stop people hacking into the databases covering items like pensions, major financial institutions are often in the firing line for letting customers info out by ,mistake or due to hackers - do you really think that a DNA database will be safe
Ridiculous - people would still carry on committing these crimes and claim (as in rape cases) that it was consensual.
Please name me one IT project (and bear in mind that the database will be an IT project) that this government have done correctly (and securely)
Just one.
The government can't stop people hacking into the databases covering items like pensions, major financial institutions are often in the firing line for letting customers info out by ,mistake or due to hackers - do you really think that a DNA database will be safe
Latest Posts
News0 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News8 mins ago
