Police to collect DNA from civilians

biko

Sally Anne Bowman from Croydon was killed last September. Now police in England has sent letters out to thousands of homes and companies in Croydon, London, looking for white males born beetwen 1965 and 1985 to give prints and DNA samples.

The goal is a total of 4000 men to "volunteer" DNA. If they refuse they may be arrested. So if it works and they indeed catch the killer they still have 4000 perfect sets of prints and DNA from a population. This could be used to check other crimes around the area and country. Police have said the DNA will only be used in connection with this murder and will then be destroyed, according to Sky News. But will it?

Although I hope that they catch the killer I'm very suspicious that DNA would be kept on file anyway and used in connection with other investigations or perhaps in some other manner by some other part of the government. Maybe CT laws will be used to obtain a copy of all the DNA samples?

I would prob only give samples after being faced with a court order, risking prison rather than just giving it up. Am I paranoid? Maybe this is a breakthrough in modern investigative police work?

edit: I'm aware that this pertains to London only but if it's a success it may well spread to the rest of Britain and eventually Ireland.

tbh

I read that this morning. I'd give a sample, to help the family out (anything that can catch the guy is good, IMO) but I'm quite uneasy about the whole thing. I guess its not a black and white issue. but I don't think you are being paranoid really
edit: according to http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13511017,00.html

Those who refuse to give DNA samples via fingerprinting and a mouth swab could expect to be visited by police.


not arrested. tho that could be semantics

The_Minister

Under the Data protection Act it would have to be thrown out.

Hogmeister B

Hopefully our admittedly flimsy constitution will protect us from such Orwellian measures. It's almost as bad as ASBOs.

Hydroquinone

If the Constitution doesn't the severe lack of resources and manpower will.

JohnK

All this will tell them is who didn't do it, not who did. This goes against the whole ideology of innocent until proven guilty and I would never volunteer a sample for such a thing.

samb

I thought that a DNA database was going to be introduced here, is this not true? I think it is generally a good thing and will help solve many serous crime (as it already has). Instead of being paranoid we should look at the benefits, after all we still elect the law makers. All a DNA database would do is catch the law brakers.
Bigger issues will arise when a more complete understanding of genetics is available. For example, Life insurance companies may request access to your DNA in order for a cheaper policy. If you have good DNA (i.e DNA that suggests you are not likely to die young or whatever) then fine you will give access and get a cheaper policy. If you refuse you will pay higher rates. You will, of course, have the rights to your DNA but those who choose to give it up will get better rates than you.

Manic Moran

[nitpick mode]Police are civilians[/nitpick mode]

NTM

Che Cara

Theres been alot of discussion regarding this over here today. Alot of people would feel uneasy in giving a DNA sample to the police due to the reported cases of DNA being kept on file after people have been disregarded in a case or being found not guilty.

Personally speaking I would have reservations on giving a DNA sample unless I was given gaureentees that it would not be held on file.

Manic Moran

There is one reason for DNA sampling not yet mentioned: It's the reason mine is on file:

So that you can be identified if killed. Admittedly, it's mandatory, and military purposes are a little different than most, but by way of example, we just buried a chap 54 years after he died: They only figured out who he was earlier this year. Still, there are a few ways to die outside of the military which result in identification being hard.

NTM

The_Minister

samb wrote:

Bigger issues will arise when a more complete understanding of genetics is available. For example, Life insurance companies may request access to your DNA in order for a cheaper policy. If you have good DNA (i.e DNA that suggests you are not likely to die young or whatever) then fine you will give access and get a cheaper policy. If you refuse you will pay higher rates. You will, of course, have the rights to your DNA but those who choose to give it up will get better rates than you.

Thats already illegal under European law

sovtek

There was a Dispatches on Ch4 last night about this...and they showed how it's abused.
Of course if you did it...you aren't going to send in your DNA...and they are going to waste how much time on testing the thousands of samples of the people that didn't do it?

Time Magazine

Maybe I'm too much of a goody two-shoes and haven't seen the state act with such wanton disregard, but if it catches the killer it's all good.

I would have no problem volunteering some spit. I didn't kill the girl. If the family want it I've no great mis-givings.

I appreciate the civil liberties thing, but if there's a guarantee the DNA is only going to be tested against whatever was found on the poor girl, who's to argue?

They did give that guarantee.

bonkey

Angry Banana wrote:

Maybe I'm too much of a goody two-shoes and haven't seen the state act with such wanton disregard, but if it catches the killer it's all good.

Rather...If it catches the killer, then its not all bad, surely.

Emphasis on the if cannot be too strong. THe reality is that this move is almost certainly not going to catch the killer directly, but it may lead to a narrowing of the correct field enough to allow the killer to be cauight.

I appreciate the civil liberties thing, but if there's a guarantee the DNA is only going to be tested against whatever was found on the poor girl, who's to argue?

They did give that guarantee.

Seriously...a guarantee?

Read my lips. No more taxes.

OK - its a bit disingenuous of me claiming an election platform constitutes a guarantee, but the underlying reasoning is fundamentally the same: a guarantee is as worthwhile as the trust you place in those who are responsible for giving it. No more, no less.

jc

tabatha

Firespinner wrote:

Under the Data protection Act it would have to be thrown out.

not in england. they have the biggest data base in the world per head. there policy is to keep it on file.

Freelancer

bonkey wrote:

Rather...If it catches the killer, then its not all bad, surely.

Emphasis on the if cannot be too strong. THe reality is that this move is almost certainly not going to catch the killer directly, but it may lead to a narrowing of the correct field enough to allow the killer to be cauight.

This isn't the first time this has happened, a similiar murder in the early 90s the police also did mass sampling the murderer in this case got someone to take his test for him, but later the sucker confessed to it and the murderer was found.

samb

Firespinner wrote:

Thats already illegal under European law

Are you sure? It seems strange that I would not be able to use my own DNA for whatever I like. It was very thoughtful making it illegal, in the sense that ussually legislation is too reactive.

Ag marbh

Letting the state take my DNA? Not a hope.

The_Minister

samb wrote:

Are you sure? It seems strange that I would not be able to use my own DNA for whatever I like. It was very thoughtful making it illegal, in the sense that ussually legislation is too reactive.

It is descended from the Eugenics prohibitions. Ill try to find a link for you.

Sam Vimes

i think there should be a national database of dna. the guilty will have no false alibi to hide behind and the innocent won't even have to give one. they'll simply take dna off the murder weapon/body/whatever and go to the killers house. perfect

Time Magazine

bonkey wrote:

Rather...If it catches the killer, then its not all bad, surely.

Welcome back bonkey, haven't seen you in a while.

Yes, if it catches the prick then it's good. If it doesn't, and nothing else happens, we've lost 4000 valuable pieces of spit.

Emphasis on the if cannot be too strong. The reality is that this move is almost certainly not going to catch the killer directly, but it may lead to a narrowing of the correct field enough to allow the killer to be cauight.

Yep, but if there was a strong enough community pressure to accept (and enforce) that this will only be used for this case (and assuming the killer is local) you will catch the killer. To be honest in today's modern world I don't see it as any different to checking everyone's fingerprints, or throwing back to an older day, seeing if anyone has red hands.

Seriously...a guarantee?

Read my lips. No more taxes.

I agree there should be limits to what cops can do and in this case I consider it necessary that they check the spit to the DNA they have from the girl, and if it doesn't match, they throw it out. I see no problem with that. By all means, if they're kept and checked against who robbed the bank then that's corruption and a breach of contract and deserves criminal prosecutions as such.

Now I'm personally for the State having a database of people's DNA, particularly for those with criminal convictions, but that's neither here nor there. I don't think that applies in this case for two reasons. First, there's no proper legislation/safeguard in place to protect liberties; and two, they've admitted as much so anyone offerign their DNA is doing so in safe knowledge.

OK - its a bit disingenuous of me claiming an election platform constitutes a guarantee, but the underlying reasoning is fundamentally the same: a guarantee is as worthwhile as the trust you place in those who are responsible for giving it. No more, no less.

And that's why I don't think they should be stored. Some people have a completele problem with having a database full stop, and that's a different kettle of fish. But let's assume they bring it an independent adjudicator, or hire some university to do the testing; then there's no problem. A young woman was murdered, her civil liberties were completely removed.

tbh

I agree with you 100% banana, some well made points there. To my mind, this issue is similar to random drugs tests at work. If my employer came to me and said "we are unhappy with your work/attendance/attitude lately, and we want (and are entitled to) carry out a drugs test." - ok, in that case, I can choose to comply or resign. If they wanted to do it simply because they could, and had no reason to, I'd say "What I do in my own time is none of your business". In a case like this, all that matters is that they catch the guy that did it. He's done it before remember - his DNA was matched to a previous assault. The cop heading it up said:

Det Ch Insp Stuart Cundy, who is leading the murder investigation, said the DNA profiles would not be put onto the national database and would only be used to eliminate men from the inquiry.

He said: "What I'm appealing for is men from the South Croydon area, men who live there, work there or visit there, who were born between 1965 and 1985, that's about 20 to 40 years old, and are either white or light skinned, because that's the description of the man I believe attacked Sally Anne Bowman.

"It is an entirely voluntary process. None of those DNA samples or fingerprints will be used to check out other unsolved crimes.

"Obviously if someone does refuse then each case will be reviewed on its own merits.

"I'll look at the evidence available, how their name entered this murder inquiry and obviously we'll give careful consideration to whether someone should be arrested for Sally Anne's murder."


If we have the technology, we should use it wherever possible. I retain the right no privacy, I just choose, given the facts, to temporarily suspend it.

or is that the thin end of the wedge?

stevenmu

Commander Vimes wrote:

i think there should be a national database of dna. the guilty will have no false alibi to hide behind and the innocent won't even have to give one. they'll simply take dna off the murder weapon/body/whatever and go to the killers house. perfect

What if someone gets hold of some of your DNA material, kills someone and spreads your DNA around the crime scene ? Unless you have an alibi, you're screwed.

Freelancer

stevenmu wrote:

What if someone gets hold of some of your DNA material, kills someone and spreads your DNA around the crime scene ? Unless you have an alibi, you're screwed.

Sir step away from the boxed set of CSI, thats it put it down, nice and slow,
And CSI Miami sir...........

Do you understand how DNA testing works? They swab the inside of your cheek, and then run it through a computer, it's not like theres going to be a big room filled with DNA.

Honestly.....

Hydroquinone

But what stevenmu is saying is basically correct. If I got some of your blood or semen and murdered someone, then planted your blood and semen in some likely fashion, all the time wearing a rubber suit (kinky) and gloves, so as not to add any of my DNA; the only DNA the cops would find would be from your blood or semen (if you are a man,of course!) and that of the victim.

If you were at home on your sweeny todd while I was out murdering this poor sap, and you had no one to back up your alibi, once they police had taken your mouth swab and compared your sample with DNA I had cunningly left at the scene, you'd be in very deep sh1te.

Freelancer

Hydroquinone wrote:

But what stevenmu is saying is basically correct. If I got some of your blood or semen and murdered someone,

What are you going to do, go door to door asking for donations for the sperm bank?

then planted your blood and semen in some likely fashion, all the time wearing a rubber suit (kinky) and gloves, so as not to add any of my DNA; the only DNA the cops would find would be from your blood or semen (if you are a man,of course!) and that of the victim.

So if I have this clear, you're going to murder someone wearing a rubber suit? shove some semen somewhere, which means you're going to have to have sex, or own a turkey baster, or put some blood somewhere pausible.

Also ensuring your not seen entering the crime scene dressed like you're off to fetish ball.

If you were at home on your sweeny todd while I was out murdering this poor sap, and you had no one to back up your alibi, once they police had taken your mouth swab and compared your sample with DNA I had cunningly left at the scene, you'd be in very deep sh1te.

If the police only used DNA to make the case, and were morons and we were trapped in possibly the worse airport novel in the universe.......

stevenmu

How hard would it be for a doctor to get some hair and blood samples from you ? Come to think of someone could just jump you out on the street throw a few thumps into you or hit you over the back of the head with something grab a few hairs and wipe some blood of whatever they hit you with. Not to mention breaking into your house, get hair, skin, saliva from your bedroom and bathroom.

Smudge some blood into the murder weapon, drop a few hairs around the place and if they could get some skin, wedge it under the victims finger nails. All of a sudden you've got a whole lot of explaining to do.



(I don't watch CSI, but I probably should give the discovery channel a bit of a rest )

Hydroquinone

Freelancer wrote:

What are you going to do, go door to door asking for donations for the sperm bank?

Well, if a man's girlfriend/wife/boyfriend wanted to stitch him up, all that would be required was one used condom. Plenty of lovely incriminating spermy DNA goodness in one of those.

Freelancer wrote:

So if I have this clear, you're going to murder someone wearing a rubber suit? shove some semen somewhere, which means you're going to have to have sex, or own a turkey baster, or put some blood somewhere pausible.

Well, no; I'm not. But I would never say it couldn't possibly be done, or that it was totally impossible

Freelancer wrote:

Also ensuring your not seen entering the crime scene dressed like you're off to fetish ball.

Pfffft. Round here no one'd bat an eyelid

Freelancer wrote:

If the police only used DNA to make the case, and were morons and we were trapped in possibly the worse airport novel in the universe.......

And has it ever been stated that DNA will never be solely used for a prosecution? And if the police were never wrong ever, there'd be no such thing as wrongful arrest, now would there?

I do, of course, take your point that the notion of me lurching about in a rubber suit, with a bag full of used condoms in my neoprene rucksack, murdering someone is more than a tad far fetched. I haven't got the legs for it, for one. And well, murder is wrong, of course. And bearing false witness, of course - that's not good either. Telling lies to the Gardai, never a good idea.

I'm really not one of the tinfoil hat brigade, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Remember that case of the Canadian doctor? He raped some of his patients and when the police/technicians, whoever it is that does it came to take a blood sample from him, he had inserted a catheter/IV line or something similar into his own arm, full of someone else's blood, so that the sample they took didn't match his semen, which he left in the women he raped. He was tested a number of times, before they actually took a hair sample from him. They got him in the end, I'm pleased to say. Just say, though, that for some reason, he happened to use the blood of some other poor sucker who was also in the frame in his "let's fool the police" arm tube. If that (hypothetical) misfortunate had no alibi for the rapes, I daresay he would have been in some serious trouble.

I realise that this is ass-backwards from the scenario I'm painting, but surely it's not outside the realms of possibility that it could happen. Maybe it already has. How would we know?

samb

Nobody is saying that DNA evidence is infalible and that a clever criminal cannot try avoid detection andOR frame someone else. The fact is however that most crimes are not the work of criminal masterminds and are spontanous outbusts. DNA evidence therefore can be a very valuable tool espeically for crimes such as rape

rubadub

samb wrote:

Nobody is saying that DNA evidence is infalible

I saw a program showing how bad it really was, the 1 in a billion odds were slashed to 1000's by some scientist and they showed some case in the US where it was proven wrong after a guy was convicted.

All you have to do is go into a barbers and pick up some hair, or collect spit from some knacker as he spits. Now where do I pick up these rubber suits you all know so much about.

Freelancer

stevenmu wrote:

How hard would it be for a doctor to get some hair and blood samples from you ? Come to think of someone could just jump you out on the street throw a few thumps into you or hit you over the back of the head with something grab a few hairs and wipe some blood of whatever they hit you with. Not to mention breaking into your house, get hair, skin, saliva from your bedroom and bathroom.

Smudge some blood into the murder weapon, drop a few hairs around the place and if they could get some skin, wedge it under the victims finger nails. All of a sudden you've got a whole lot of explaining to do.



(I don't watch CSI, but I probably should give the discovery channel a bit of a rest )

Not to mention your DNA is also now all over the crime scene, and your hair and skin is mixed with his.

Look this is an absurd discussion, you clearly have no idea how this work, and I'm not going fuel your Walter Mitty esque flights of fancy over it......