Dna Database.......bravo Eu!

[DangerUXD]

I for one am delighted to thank the EU for adding to the rare occasions when they do something useful. Why did it take 5 years?
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/national-dna-database/destruct-innocent-peoples-dna/
Would anyone like to speculate as to what would happen if a criminal was tracked down as a result of DNA that is now illiogallu held?

[FredPuli43]

I missed one. It is possible to argue that there has been cross-contamination; that an exhibit , the product of one investigation, has been in contact with other exhibits from the present investigation and somehow the DNA from one has been transferred by contact to another. Trouble with that is that it's very unlikely and, more importantly, the transferred DNA is not likely to be good enough, certainly likely to be poor, for identification to any reasonably high level

[emmie]

so no reason to keep a DNA database..

[Kromovaracun]

But the samples of DNA a buccal swab provides are surely so tiny as to prevent being reliably planted at a crime scene (which is effectively what em10 and Zeuhl seem to have expressed concerns about). The number of cells they yield is surely miniscule compared to the more common semen/saliva/blood stains which most commonly end up being used as evidence - so much so that the chances of them even being found are pretty slim. Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken they are identifiably cells originating from the inner cheek, which would certainly raise alarm bells for any jury.

I don't deny I'm arguing from a position of ignorance here - I could well be wrong. It's just what makes the whole 'the authorities could plant our DNA' objection seem a bit implausible to me on first impression.

[Zeuhl]

Kromo

just to clarify my 'concern'

it isn't necessarily our official sample that might be planted.

if DNA became a universal panacea for 'fast track' crime detection then it is very easy for someone to obtain your DNA (we leave it behind on anything we come into contact with) and place it at a crime scene.

Also, placing forensic criminology on a pedestal of 'certainty' is dangerous. It is often a lot flimsier, imprecise and more debatable than we would like to think

[Kromovaracun]

I don't think anyone would argue DNA evidence is a 'magic bullet' (or I hope not), but it does seem to be pretty a pretty useful tool in a criminal justice system that is a lot more flawed than we might like to think.

There's umpteen examples of people who spend years in prison and are subsequently found to be innocent of the charges levelled against them due to DNA evidence. According to the LA times, 300 people and counting in the states alone have been exonerated in this way: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/01/nation/la-na-dna-evidence-20121001

Note that many of these people (such as David Lee Wiggins) were arrested and sentenced long after DNA profiling became available to police forces.

How many of those stolen years could have been avoided by use of a DNA database? How many people are there in our prisons whose convictions could (and therefore should) be reversed? How many people are walking around today because the wrong person was convicted?

[Kromovaracun]

"Also, placing forensic criminology on a pedestal of 'certainty' is dangerous. It is often a lot flimsier, imprecise and more debatable than we would like to think"

Oh, absolutely. I agree.

"if DNA became a universal panacea for 'fast track' crime detection then it is very easy for someone to obtain your DNA (we leave it behind on anything we come into contact with) and place it at a crime scene. "

I'm not sure I buy this. I'm very worried about embarrassing myself here, but it was my impression - only gleaned through the odd trashy crime book admittedly - that when police collect evidence of this nature, they don't look for 'DNA' matches - they look for blood, or semen or saliva (or whatever) matches. You may well leave your DNA everywhere, but you certainly don't leave those fluids everywhere.

[Maggoty]

wasn;t really understanding the 'planting of DNA' bit but now I think I now what you guys are getting at.

Its not the planting of DNA that yo are concerned about its the planting of something with DNA in it (hair etc) that can then be searched on the database and then the wrong person picked up.

One way of getting your back on your OH - something Vicky Pryce would have had a field day with :-)

x