What pisses me off about the whole situation is that the Government are allowed to continue to hold the DNA samples whilst they think about the ruling.
Ummm... No! You've been ruled against, destroy them!
Personally I am completely against a DNA database being constructed of the nation. It's got nothing to do with crime fighting as much as it's got to do with control.
Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you like but consider this:
Cumpulsory DNA samples are taken of every person in the UK and stored on an international (which is what they want ultimately) database. Those responsible for storing the samples commence screening using the very latest techniques, supposedly in the interests of Public Health. During this screening they find a sample that has a genetic defect that has been theoretically linked to a predisposition to Schizophrenia or a violent personality disorder (and you may scoff but they're already testing for these things now, just not on this ind of scale). The donor is then placed on a watch list or worse - is taken into 'care' to prevent a dangerous episode involving the public. Under current Laws in place this power is already available to the Police.
Who knows where it would stop? Personally the possibilities worry me. And that's not even getting down to the possibility of abuse of such a system.
*sigh* Sometimes it sucks being a Paranoid conspiracy theorist
The donor is then placed on a watch list or worse - is taken into 'care' to prevent a dangerous episode involving the public. Under current Laws in place this power is already available to the Police.
Trouble is the chaps who had the ruling one was acquitted and the other had charges dropped - so didn't go to trial for whatever reason, however they must've done something to have their collars felt. To be so against the database would make me wonder what they want to hide.
You forgot to add that if the allegedly bent coppers who set up the Birmingham 6 etc had had DNA samples to place at the scene they'ed all still be inside.
On the upside though, a tosser that used to drink in one of my locals got pissed up a few months back & went home to get a load of abuse from his Mrs & her mum. She slapped him, he slapped her back, her mum called plod & they came and arrested him. Off to the station so DNA sample taken in view of 'violent' crime & bingo - the scumbag had brutally raped a young woman on her way home 8 years odd before.
Weren't the Police in the Soham murder case lambasted because they had destroyed the records pertaining to Ian Huntley's arrest (but not conviction) for burglary and sexual offences?
Personally I'm all for a full DNA database of everyone in the UK. But I don't trust our Government (or the Police) to administer it properly. However I'm, quite happy for them to keep records or criminals (and suspected criminals) for as long as they want.
It's a balance between the criminals 'right to privacy' and my right not to have my car screwed by some lowlife that thinks they can take whatever they want.
However I'm, quite happy for them to keep records or criminals (and suspected criminals) for as long as they want.
Like all the people who have been arrested for protesting against the Iraq war, or the whistle blowers who embarrass the government, or even if to many people gather in one place and the authorities don't like it and hundreds if not thousands of activities that are deemed legally criminal but most of us would expect to be perfectly acceptable or allowable.
And at the Hospital here when you are admitted for treatment there is a very important bit of information they frequently forget to give you - unless you state that your DNA is not to be sampled, they have presumed consent. Where does the sample go?
I could carry on, but I already appear to be a drooling conspiracy nut...
Better still, it's really easy to commit a crime and leave DNA for someone you don't like lying around, just drop a few cigarette buts at the location that'll keep the police confused for ages
Client got broken into and they found the thief because of a dropped cigarette butt, seriously!!
As in the example nobby gave, its hard to argue against setting up DNA database that catches rapists and murderers etc.
The problem lies in what is deemed worthy of using the database to detect, if you look at terrorism for example where does terrorism begin and the right to protest end.
We also need to see some action by the government on protecting data they already hold on us, and I don't mean the loss of data that have been in the papers recently, but the way data is given to any company that requests it.
The data held by the DVLA is supposedly for law enforcement purposes, yet is freely (or at least cheaply) available to any company that requests it. Is it reasonable that all your details should be handed over to Tescos or McDonald's because they think you have been parked at their car park too long.
My worry is that a DNA database would be available to potential employers or insurance companies.
The government/police shouldn't be allowed to hold DNA data from innocent people - reasons:
1. They can't be trusted with looking after data safely - insert any number of examples here.
2. There is no real evidence that storing a random selection of innocent people's DNA will have a significant effect on solving crime. Your car will be no more or less likely to get nicked if your mate who has taken part in a (say) anti government protest has had his DNA stored.
3. If it is OK to store innocent people's DNA, then the logical conclusion is to make giving DNA samples mandatory for everyone.
4. There are many future uses for DNA profiles that we can't really guess at right now.
