DNA Sample at birth

[spaced]

why cant a DNA sample be taken of everyone at birth, so when a crime is committed and DNA is left at the scence or on a body, the true identit of the criminal can be known immeditaley.

It makes total sense, as apposed to obtaining the DNA and waiting to match it with the criminals. If all our DNA is stored on a database, people would think twuice about committing a crime.

Disucss

[jake-the-peg]

Been knocked about quite a bit on here recently such as here:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Question457353.html

Of course you could go further and tatoo everybody with a serial number.

[fo3nix]

Erm... because we live in a supposedly liberal society and not everyone wants to be recorded on some national register?

Police states aren't good.

[spaced]

I agree that it would like a Big Brotheresque society but surely the pros far outway the cons?? Reduction of crime possibly?

[NORMANTHEDOG]

totally agree with you,if you have nothing to fear,whats the problem.

[4GS]

I wouldn't have a problem with the authorities having a sample of my DNA,
I do have a huge problem knowing that these databases are unsafe

[eyebrows]

what if they offered an incentive......

free id card, or lollypop?

if not at least a sticker which says "i gave DNA today" and a picture if a dna spiral.....with a smiley face?

[wildwood]

It would presuppose that everyone is possibly going to be a future criminal which is contradictory to the foundation of a democratic society.

[oldgrape]

i think its a great idea would help to lower the number of murderers, rapest etc.. who get away with crimes and would possibly stop serial killers

[Goodsoulette]

Nice one, Jake.

If we lived in a perfect world and an ideal society then it might be a good idea but then it wouldn't be needed would it. So working on the basis that the government was honest, the police didn't abuse the database system and that for once hackers weren't 100 steps ahead of any official database, then maybe I might not think it was bad idea, putting aside the slightly odd idea of having your baby swabbed for DNA!

Would you trust the government to look after it? No! and I certainly wouldn't trust anyone privately contracted.


How many points would they mark your DNA at for this database? because you could be one of 60 people in the Uk that have committed the crime, if its marked at the level it is for court cases. Hopefully if you are one of those people of the 60 who didn't commit the rape etc then there would be enough evidence to match the real criminal to the act but thees always that eliment of doubt that you could just be fitted up.

[China Doll]

As Jake said it's been discussed here before.

I for one would be 100% opposed to this as an idea.

The IT involved would be open to abuse and as far as I'm aware DNA is not the be all and end all as evidence. (The latter has been argued before and the sciencey people do it much better than me).

[eyebrows]

but what can be abused with your dna?

i dont get the risk......?

its not liek soemone can comitt a crime and change there dna to yours?

what is teh worse that can happen?

[China Doll]

You could mess around with IT systems and change data. Goverment funded IT projects are usually terribly done. See tax credits as an example.

Depending on how the information is used (if it's shared for example), insurance companies could refuse to do life insurance, private etc.. if you're predisposed genetically to certain health issues.

Also, DNA can be left all over the place. If someone was murdered in my room say, my DNA would be all over the place, (well my hair or something at any rate). Not great. DNA in that case wouldn't be helpful exactly would it.

If a woman cried rape but it was actually consentual sex. The blokes DNA may be there but what use would it be in a case like that other than to make him look guilty?

Also, I'm sure there's some rules/laws about admitting/using DNA evidence in court anyway which would probably make the whole thing redundant. (That's the bit the sciencey guys know more about than me).

So yeah... Don't entirely see how it'd be useful.

DNA is not 100% full proof is basically what I'm getting at.

[eyebrows]

exactly...

people are going on like there going to be able to clone you dna from this database and get you framed for murder......

[Loosehead]

well I'll re iterate what I said in the other thread. The presence of DNA does not prove guilt it just proves the DNA is there. I could obtain some of your DNA and plant it at the scene, your nicked sunshine! your DNA is their so you must be guilty. There are also many legit reasons for DNA to be present. What if I have consentual sex with a woman who is later raped? My DNA is there but I'm innocent, under your system I'd be banged up no questions asked. DNA is a strong indicator but by no means a 100% indicator.

Let's get away from this "Holy Grail" cobblers. DNA is another useful tool that's all.

Oh NORMAN please, "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear", so twee so quaint so naive!

I just do not trust the government with this kind of power. How long before they start flogging it off to lifa assurance companies etc.

Sorry this is one of the rare occasions when I agree with jake

[eyebrows]

they couldnt flog it off,...... data protection and civil rights.....

so you saying if they passed the law, and guarenteed they wouldnt flog it on you would be happy?

[jake-the-peg]

Shall we suppose eyebrow that I get hold of the database.

Perhaps I can use it to find all the people with a genetic disposition to say Multiple Sclerosis or Alzheimers.

Maybe you're on the list.

Maybe I ask you for money so as not to tell your employer or fiance, will he still want to marry you if he knows his kids might have a disease.

DNA is not like a credit card number - they can't give you a new one once it's out there!

Does this sound paranoid?

How paranoid did identity theft sound 10 years ago?

[Goodsoulette]

you could be wrongly matched, if there was a national compulsory database I would stake my home on the fact that hackers would see it as a challenge to get in there and mess the information up and swap it about, generally abuse the system just to prove it could be done and to prove its a bad idea.

If you could compare each persons entire DNA you would find that everyone is different. However there have definitely been cases of burglary and rape in the US where people have been sat in prison disputing their crime and years down the line have been released because on testing and retesting and then low and behold found innocent as his only link to the crime was his DNA where his markers to the standard testing was a perfect match but upon further investigation when tested at more points didnt match.

DNA wont be indisputable evidence when it stands on its own as the only evidence because the following questions would need to be answered.
Did the accused's Dna end up there at the same time as the crime was committed?
Could it be an accidental random match?
Could the DNA sample have been planted?

So with all that in mind, why as a law abiding system should I have to have my privacy infringed by having it stored on a database, open to misuse.

[eyebrows]

yeah but if hacker go in and change it all around, will a simple test not prove that the dna on database does not actually belong to you?

[jake-the-peg]

Well as I said on a previous thread eyebrows - they can't protect the data they already have.

A company is already in trouble for not distroying samples it was meant to and we have had people on this very website who've had relatives tell them things they know from working on the sex offenders register.

I'll reckon there are very few cases where serious crimes are comitted by people who are not already on the database - remember if you're arrested you're on it.

[Goodsoulette]

SO eyebrow whats the point in all the cost if someone screws up the database and lots of retesting is needed. The police are in a no easier situation than they are already.