Is it time we had a DNA database for everyone in the UK?

[Skylar]

What happens if the crim legs it?

They'd be picked up before they had the opportunity and in the Mansfield case remanded in custody.

 

[dingodan]

Watched Crime watch last night for the first time in 20 years and was sickened by the evil vile scum that are walking our streets. In Mansfield a woman was walking her dog and was approached by a white local male in his late teens, early twenty's who asked the time, he punched her to the floor then proceeded to give her a good battering then spent 20 minutes.....

That crime was disgusting and rather depressing so switched over but my argument is, why don't we have a national database for all. I mean, when babies are born then their DNA is taken and all immigrants who get given British passports should have their DNA taken too.

I know the bed wetters of the liberal left will be up in arms about human rights just like the Liberal democrats have and not to mention Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty who is against the right minded, law abiding, tax payer because from where I'm sitting it seems criminals have more rights than the good guys-girls.

My argument is that if DNA was taken at birth and from all immigrants that enter our country then we'd be able to solve the crime within 24 hours, we'd know who the suspect is and the culprit be apprehended eventually unlike now where the Mansfield rapist maybe never caught, but if his DNA was taken at birth then he'd be arrested by now.

I know DNA won't stop rapes, murders etc but the suspects would be identified in a day or two and arrested unlike now where such crimes do go unsolved.

If you're a normal law abiding citizen then you haven't anything to fear from having your DNA stored and I wouldn't have an issue with my DNA being taken.

Would you have a problem with this?

You could make the same argument about putting CCTV in everyone's living room too. In fact, if we put everyone in a cage we could get crime to 0%. We CAN stop ALL rapes and murders by doing that. So we should do it right? No.

It's not time for a DNA database, it's time for ideas like this to be put in the trash permanently, where they belong.

 

[BensGrandad]

I can think of no justifiable objection to it.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Dont have a problem with DNA being taken, however the set up and administration of such a database would (IMO) be exhorbitant and liable to errors. Would the cost asscoiated be worthwhile when, as you say it wont stop the crime from occuring in the first place.

DNA is not 100% reliable on a population level, and only places someone as being at the scene of a crime. it does not prove they commited a crime. it can be quite easy for a criminal to be careful about leaving DNA evidence while someone innocent isnt, and subseqently falsely accused. or convicted, on nothing more than chance encounter at a scene prior to a crime.

If records were not kept correctly, there is a danger of cross contamination.

It wouldn't help that much in rape cases as over 70% of rape victims know their attacker already. Stranger rape is rarer than the public realise.

 

[SAC]

Why stop at a DNA database, we could all be fitted with micro-chips to see if we do anything wrong. After all, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about.

 

[sydney]

No - because it has the potential to be abused by the authorities.

and sections of the public alike.... bad idea .....maybe 2401.

 

[Sergei's Celebration]

DNA is not 100% reliable on a population level, and only places someone as being at the scene of a crime. it does not prove they commited a crime. it can be quite easy for a criminal to be careful about leaving DNA evidence while someone innocent isnt, and subseqently falsely accused. or convicted, on nothing more than chance encounter at a scene prior to a crime.

Isnt that where an alibi and good old fashioned policing comes in. The DNA would be the start point of the investigation.

 

[Gwylan]

DNA is not 100% reliable on a population level, and only places someone as being at the scene of a crime. it does not prove they commited a crime. it can be quite easy for a criminal to be careful about leaving DNA evidence while someone innocent isnt, and subseqently falsely accused. or convicted, on nothing more than chance encounter at a scene prior to a crime.

Yes, this is the biggest objection of all. Not only could it send a confusing message by placing in innocent person at the scene of a crime, it's also not accurate enough to identify a criminal. If there are several suspects, yes, it can be used to separate them but if they're related, the DNA test might not be good enough. There was a case in Marseille a few years ago when a woman was raped and they had a really good match ... trouble was, the match fitted two brothers, and the police couldn't work out which one did it

 

[Skylar]

Yes, this is the biggest objection of all. Not only could it send a confusing message by placing in innocent person at the scene of a crime, it's also not accurate enough to identify a criminal. If there are several suspects, yes, it can be used to separate them but if they're related, the DNA test might not be good enough. There was a case in Marseille a few years ago when a woman was raped and they had a really good match ... trouble was, the match fitted two brothers, and the police couldn't work out which one did it

The Mansfield rapist left his DNA all over the victim. How much more DNA does one want.

 

[BensGrandad]

Yes, this is the biggest objection of all. Not only could it send a confusing message by placing in innocent person at the scene of a crime, it's also not accurate enough to identify a criminal. If there are several suspects, yes, it can be used to separate them but if they're related, the DNA test might not be good enough. There was a case in Marseille a few years ago when a woman was raped and they had a really good match ... trouble was, the match fitted two brothers, and the police couldn't work out which one did it

I thought I read that everybody has 1 person in the world with the same DNA but the chance of them being in the same place at the same time is virtually negligible.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

I thought I read that everybody has 1 person in the world with the same DNA but the chance of them being in the same place at the same time is virtually negligible.

The only people that share exact DNA are identical twins.

 

[BensGrandad]

The only people that share exact DNA are identical twins.

I am reasonably sure that I read that even that doesnt apply, but could be mistaken.

 

[beorhthelm]

Isnt that where an alibi and good old fashioned policing comes in. The DNA would be the start point of the investigation.

if you dont mind being pulled in by the dragnet on the assumption of guilt. and you have an alibi. DNA database would be used as the start and end of investigation - why do you need anymore when its supposedly fool-proof, and if recognised as less, then it loses credibility.

 

[El Presidente]

Why not cut off all mens WILLIES when they get to 13? That would stop all rape, and put the porn industry out of business too, preventing the exploitation of women in that industry (if that is your viewpoint on it).

The young chaps could crack one off into a paper cup before the todger is detached, so that they could still have kids later in life.

You KNOW it makes SENSE.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The only people that share exact DNA are identical twins.

Correct. Though not identical fingerprints.

 

[Arkwright]

I would go one step further and like dogs have everyone bar coded at birth.

Just an idea.

 

[El Presidente]

Correct. Though not identical fingerprints.

I've just had a message from Hybrid_X. He said you are ignoring the CLONES that the government have created to spy on us.

 

[El Presidente]

I would go one step further and like dogs have everyone bar coded at birth.

Just an idea.

Would that help you determine how much each one cost?

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

IMO the pros far out way the cons.

So it's a yes from me.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The funny thing here is that many of you are talking about DNA as being the be all and end all of a case. It may surprise you to learn that the prosecution has to do a little more than merely prove somebody was "there". I've heard all sorts of ludicrous explanations from defendants as to how bits of their being have miraculously come to be found in particular locations. They can come up with some ridiculously improbable tale, yet the prosecution will still have to go to great lengths to disprove that, because they have- quite rightly- to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that what has been alleged is a fact.

There was a taxi driver who was convicted a couple of years ago of a series of horrific rapes around the Home Counties. He tried to claim in court that a previous girlfriend had maliciously stored his DNA, and then contacted a load of other women she'd never met before, convinced them to make rape claims against him, given them a sample of his DNA to contaminate themselves with, and then waited for the police to turn up. Worst defence argument ever, you'd think, but the prosecution would still have had to make provisions to counter that defence, in order for the jury to consider that there wasn't the slightest chance he was telling the truth.

DNA is but one strand of a prosecution case. It's supporting evidence. It's brilliant science at times, but it doesn't stand alone and it's not the magical solution to everything.