What If The Labour Party Got Rid Of...
Politics1 min ago
DNA of the innocent....
Should it be removed from the Database?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7531588.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7531588.stm
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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.
"A report commissioned by the Human Genetics Commission said the DNA profiles of 50,000 children on the database should also be removed after five years.
The study also criticised "lax security measures" around which organisations had access to the database.
Last week The Daily Telegraph disclosed how millions of profiles had been handed over to private companies without the consent of those involved.
The DNA database contains records of 4.2 million people, of which one million have never been convicted of an offence."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/2471425/DNA-profiles-of-one-million-inno cent-people-should-be-erased%2C-watchdog-says. html
Yes it should.
The study also criticised "lax security measures" around which organisations had access to the database.
Last week The Daily Telegraph disclosed how millions of profiles had been handed over to private companies without the consent of those involved.
The DNA database contains records of 4.2 million people, of which one million have never been convicted of an offence."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/pol itics/2471425/DNA-profiles-of-one-million-inno cent-people-should-be-erased%2C-watchdog-says. html
Yes it should.
-- answer removed --
I think it's an incredibly difficuly issue... the reasons behind keeping a database (in addition to fingerprints, history of arrest etc) originate from the Ian Huntley scenario... he's only ever commited two crimes (technically) - all the previous allegations of rape etc were wiped because he wasn't proved to be guilty (subtle but important difference fromm being innocent).
Should the database be maintained to show patterns of allegations behaviour? (maybe, and probably, yes). Should they be passed to non-police organistions? (My opinion is "no").
The argument taht "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about"..... too simplistic. Maybe technically accurate, but polictically and socialogically (paranoidically??) unacceptable.
And yes, I am a copper. And these are my own opinions. And yes, I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the way in which things are done. But the job is worth it for every real criminal caught, every victim that feels better for seeing us arrive, and every life saved.
But I understand why we are seem as the bad guys..... we are the ones tasked with implementing ever-changing policy and we are the ones blamed for everything from legislation, to CPS decisions, to court verdicts and to sentences given out by judges.
Should the database be maintained to show patterns of allegations behaviour? (maybe, and probably, yes). Should they be passed to non-police organistions? (My opinion is "no").
The argument taht "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about"..... too simplistic. Maybe technically accurate, but polictically and socialogically (paranoidically??) unacceptable.
And yes, I am a copper. And these are my own opinions. And yes, I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the way in which things are done. But the job is worth it for every real criminal caught, every victim that feels better for seeing us arrive, and every life saved.
But I understand why we are seem as the bad guys..... we are the ones tasked with implementing ever-changing policy and we are the ones blamed for everything from legislation, to CPS decisions, to court verdicts and to sentences given out by judges.
There is an interesting parallel, Yorkie, between Geezer�s question and this one:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question60 1946.html
The views expressed in response to that question were considerably varied, but strangely those responding to this one (so far) seem of one mind.
The earlier one sparked much debate surrounding �if you�ve nothing to hide...� etc. and you can see my point of view.
I see the two questions as raising an identical issue. That is, should personal data be forcibly taken and retained from individuals of good character en masse to either (a) eliminate the possibility that they may be of bad character or (b) to be able to identify them in the future in case they might commit a crime.
In the case of the airport fingerprinting, it is not at all clear what its aim is supposed to be, nor has it been explained how the information obtained will be used.
In the case of the DNA database, it is said that it will be used to investigate serious crime. However, we have seen recently how legislation aimed at preventing and investigating serious crime has been used to deal with (among other things) hecklers, fly-tippers, parents taking their disabled son on a day trip and parents accused of falsely claiming to live a �good� school�s catchment area.
In short, the autorities cannot be trusted to use the legislation within the boundaries intended by Parliament
[Continued]
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question60 1946.html
The views expressed in response to that question were considerably varied, but strangely those responding to this one (so far) seem of one mind.
The earlier one sparked much debate surrounding �if you�ve nothing to hide...� etc. and you can see my point of view.
I see the two questions as raising an identical issue. That is, should personal data be forcibly taken and retained from individuals of good character en masse to either (a) eliminate the possibility that they may be of bad character or (b) to be able to identify them in the future in case they might commit a crime.
In the case of the airport fingerprinting, it is not at all clear what its aim is supposed to be, nor has it been explained how the information obtained will be used.
In the case of the DNA database, it is said that it will be used to investigate serious crime. However, we have seen recently how legislation aimed at preventing and investigating serious crime has been used to deal with (among other things) hecklers, fly-tippers, parents taking their disabled son on a day trip and parents accused of falsely claiming to live a �good� school�s catchment area.
In short, the autorities cannot be trusted to use the legislation within the boundaries intended by Parliament
[Continued]
[Continued]
As a police officer you obviously know that the police are not allowed to go �fishing�. When obtaining a warrant, for example, they have to have specific information which gives them grounds to suspect that an individual has either committed a crime or will do so.
Allowing the retention of DNA and fingerprint data of people of good character is rather like letting them search every property in the country for David Cameron�s stolen bike.
I know we do not live in an ideal world (in which case there would be no need for any laws at all). But because the world is not ideal I do not see the need to see every one of the Queen�s subjects as a potential criminal, virtually forcing them to establish their innocence.
If one has �nothing to hide� then there is nothing to be found. The long established principle of innocence in this country means that it is not for the individual to prove that, but it is for the authorities to prove otherwise. There is no obligation for the individual to help in that process unless he wants to. And that�s how it should remain.
Cue now for all those to come in and say �but if it solves or prevents just one crime...�, and the ubiquitous �but of course if you�ve nothing to hide...�.
As a police officer you obviously know that the police are not allowed to go �fishing�. When obtaining a warrant, for example, they have to have specific information which gives them grounds to suspect that an individual has either committed a crime or will do so.
Allowing the retention of DNA and fingerprint data of people of good character is rather like letting them search every property in the country for David Cameron�s stolen bike.
I know we do not live in an ideal world (in which case there would be no need for any laws at all). But because the world is not ideal I do not see the need to see every one of the Queen�s subjects as a potential criminal, virtually forcing them to establish their innocence.
If one has �nothing to hide� then there is nothing to be found. The long established principle of innocence in this country means that it is not for the individual to prove that, but it is for the authorities to prove otherwise. There is no obligation for the individual to help in that process unless he wants to. And that�s how it should remain.
Cue now for all those to come in and say �but if it solves or prevents just one crime...�, and the ubiquitous �but of course if you�ve nothing to hide...�.
I suppose it all depends on your interpretation of that term, Rev.
I believe there is already far too much information on individuals which is either held directly by the state or to which it has virtually unfettered access. Much of it is held unnecessarily, a lot of it is not properly protected from invasion or loss and some of it is blatantly abused.
To extend this further by the holding of information which can identify an individual from the smallest speck of material is a further extension of the above.
If you don�t mind having such information held unnecessarily and insecurely and open to abuse it should be your privilege to provide it on a voluntary basis.
I do mind, because as I said in my earlier post, at present I do not trust State organisations to behave responsibly and within the spirit of the laws laid down by Parliament.
The fact that some people commit crimes does not justify wholesale monitoring and tracking of the entire population. As I outlined in the earlier post concerning fingerprinting, these measures are drip fed to the population, each one �not much more than already happens�. But taken in total they represent a massive invasion by the state into people�s lives and affairs.
The authorities need to develop other ways of combating crime. I have absolutely nothing to hide � and therefore absolutely nothing for any State organisation to suspect me of. Until they have, I have no need to be on their radar.
I believe there is already far too much information on individuals which is either held directly by the state or to which it has virtually unfettered access. Much of it is held unnecessarily, a lot of it is not properly protected from invasion or loss and some of it is blatantly abused.
To extend this further by the holding of information which can identify an individual from the smallest speck of material is a further extension of the above.
If you don�t mind having such information held unnecessarily and insecurely and open to abuse it should be your privilege to provide it on a voluntary basis.
I do mind, because as I said in my earlier post, at present I do not trust State organisations to behave responsibly and within the spirit of the laws laid down by Parliament.
The fact that some people commit crimes does not justify wholesale monitoring and tracking of the entire population. As I outlined in the earlier post concerning fingerprinting, these measures are drip fed to the population, each one �not much more than already happens�. But taken in total they represent a massive invasion by the state into people�s lives and affairs.
The authorities need to develop other ways of combating crime. I have absolutely nothing to hide � and therefore absolutely nothing for any State organisation to suspect me of. Until they have, I have no need to be on their radar.
DNA profiling is the best tool the police have since the taking of fingerprints and should not be discarded lightly. A simple solution would be to have two database sets of DNA, one comprised of those with a criminal background and the other where no crimes have taken place.
When checking for a match look first at the criminals DNA database. If there is no match with this sample the offender could be the general public at large who have so far proved innocent so the remaining sample can be tested. As there are over 4 million on the DNA database the majority of criminals would be on the 1st database.
When checking for a match look first at the criminals DNA database. If there is no match with this sample the offender could be the general public at large who have so far proved innocent so the remaining sample can be tested. As there are over 4 million on the DNA database the majority of criminals would be on the 1st database.
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Technology31 mins ago