An idea that might reduce 99.9% of all murders/rape

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

That's a gross oversimplification of how governments operate or how they are elected. Just like stating that 99.9% of murders/rapes could be reduced by the silver bullet of DNA testing. Where did the 99.9% come from, by the way? Using an unsubstantiated number for argument purposes? Read How to Lie with Statistics by Huff.

DAME wrote:

I never said that 99.9% of murders/rapes could be reduced by DNA testing. That was the OP.
<snip>
I haven't quoted any statistics in this thread so you've read it wrong.

Apology coming soon, Blue_Lagoon?

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

I'm asking why is it so bad if it reduces even a few murders (as in if it caught a mass murderer after his first victim rather than after his 48th).

This is the same argument that the Bush gang use to slowly suck away the privacy of law abiding citizens in the USA. They use "what if" scare tactics to justify illegal wire taps of phones and emails of millions of citizens by the NSA. And if you challenge their methods, under the PATRIOT Act, in some cases they can criminalize you. (The American Civil Liberties Union continues to document the erosion of civil rights in the USA, as does Amnesty International about actions of the USA outside its borders)

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

This is the same argument that the Bush gang use to slowly suck away the privacy of law abiding citizens in the USA. They use "what if" scare tactics to justify illegal wire taps of phones and emails of millions of citizens by the NSA. And if you challenge their methods, under the PATRIOT Act, in some cases they can criminalize you. (The American Civil Liberties Union continues to document the erosion of civil rights in the USA, as does Amnesty International about actions of the USA outside its borders)

Americans voted for Bush.

No apology then. :eek: Manners, tsk tsk! I notice you carefully avoided what was before and after that sentence. :rolleyes:

Conar

dame wrote: »

It could be mandatory to have your phone with you for work.

But you chose whether or not to work there.


I really don't think that there are enough murders or rapes to warrant the potential risks of having such a database.

AFAIK most murders are crimes of passion so DNA evidence mya help put away the murdered but it won't stop the murder. Perhaps the organised crime related murders are now topping the tables but I don't think DNA evidence will put a stop to that.
Also it seems that a lot of rapists get off not because they can't be linked to the scene of the crime but for other reasons so I don't see how it will resolve this either. (No stats to back this up just how I perceive things to be)

There are too many potential downsides to what I see would make little or no difference to crime figures.

In what situations would they be allowed check the database?
Could your work get the police to check it if something goes missing, or is it just violent crimes?
Who decides?

We all know that its unlikely that we will ever be under the rule of an evil authoritarian government but we can't rule it out.

I value my freedom and I am willing to accept that some people will die and the crimes will go unsolved in order to keep it. Freedom comes with a price.

Rob_l

Conar wrote: »

But you chose whether or not to work there.


I really don't think that there are enough murders or rapes to warrant the potential risks of having such a database.

AFAIK most murders are crimes of passion so DNA evidence mya help put away the murdered but it won't stop the murder. Perhaps the organised crime related murders are now topping the tables but I don't think DNA evidence will put a stop to that.
Also it seems that a lot of rapists get off not because they can't be linked to the scene of the crime but for other reasons so I don't see how it will resolve this either. (No stats to back this up just how I perceive things to be)

There are too many potential downsides to what I see would make little or no difference to crime figures.

In what situations would they be allowed check the database?
Could your work get the police to check it if something goes missing, or is it just violent crimes?
Who decides?

We all know that its unlikely that we will ever be under the rule of an evil authoritarian government but we can't rule it out.

I value my freedom and I am willing to accept that some people will die and the crimes will go unsolved in order to keep it. Freedom comes with a price.

I concur fully the potential for misuse of this database is unknown, too much risk to my personal freedom.
Dna is much much more than just an identity marker and I do not see the benefits as being worth the risk.

randylonghorn

I'll admit I've just skimmed the thread, as I've heard (and been involved in) this argument far too many times before.

This kind of idea is only viable / safe if we assume that:
... all governments, everywhere and at every time, including the future, are / will be wholly benevolent, well-meaning and security-conscious;
... all agencies with access to such information are equally upstanding and well-meaning;
... all employees of such governments and agencies are incorruptible, and could not under any circumstances be induced to misuse or sell such information, no matter how much they were offered;
... all "crackers" with the ability to tunnel into the relevant computer systems, and extract information from them, are equally benevolent and upstanding citizens.

Anyone like to sign up to that set of assumptions?

Orwellian territory here, people!


Nor is there any guarantee that such a policy would prevent the majority of rapes, murders, etc. ... it might reduce the numbers all right, it might make the perpetrators easier to catch, but to assume it would almost eliminate such acts is extremely far-fetched.



"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

There's a thing called democracy. Politicians are elected representatives, there to serve the people, not business.

In theory, but not in practice. Once again, this is a gross oversimplification of how government works or how it is elected. Are you aware of PACs in the States? Political Action Committees? They receive millions of dollars from corporations that support candidates that agree with their corporate agendas. Why else would a corporation donate millions to a political candidate? For democracy? Get real!

It is extremely rare that someone can get elected to high public office in the USA without millions of dollars to hire the ad campaign experts to spin their platorms and buy the media air time. For example, the USA oil corporations gave millions of dollars to PACs organised to elect Bush (a former oil man). Now the USA is in Iraq controlling the 5th leading producer of oil in the world. USA oil corporations have been reported in the Wall Street Journal has having achieved the highest profits in their corporate histories. Connect the dots.

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In theory, but not in practice. Once again, this is a gross oversimplification of how government works or how it is elected. Are you aware of PACs in the States? Political Action Committees? They receive millions of dollars from corporations that support candidates that agree with their corporate agendas. Why else would a corporation donate millions to a political candidate? For democracy? Get real!

It is extremely rare that someone can get elected to high public office in the USA without millions of dollars to hire the ad campaign experts to spin their platorms and buy the media air time. For example, the USA oil corporations gave millions of dollars to PACs organised to elect Bush (a former oil man). Now the USA is in Iraq controlling the 5th leading producer of oil in the world. USA oil corporations have been reported in the Wall Street Journal has having achieved the highest profits in their corporate histories. Connect the dots.

Once again, people can vote. Do you generally vote for the person with the shiniest, slickest ad campaign? If you do, you're an idiot.

Still waiting for that apology.

dame

Conar wrote: »

But you chose whether or not to work there.


I really don't think that there are enough murders or rapes to warrant the potential risks of having such a database.

AFAIK most murders are crimes of passion so DNA evidence mya help put away the murdered but it won't stop the murder. Perhaps the organised crime related murders are now topping the tables but I don't think DNA evidence will put a stop to that.
Also it seems that a lot of rapists get off not because they can't be linked to the scene of the crime but for other reasons so I don't see how it will resolve this either. (No stats to back this up just how I perceive things to be)

There are too many potential downsides to what I see would make little or no difference to crime figures.

In what situations would they be allowed check the database?
Could your work get the police to check it if something goes missing, or is it just violent crimes?
Who decides?

We all know that its unlikely that we will ever be under the rule of an evil authoritarian government but we can't rule it out.

I value my freedom and I am willing to accept that some people will die and the crimes will go unsolved in order to keep it. Freedom comes with a price.

Maybe it was the only job available to you, for example if that is the only job which was available in the location you wanted (or needed to live in for family or whatever reasons) using the specialist skills that you have.

Do you plan on taking things from work?
No, I personally don't think work should be allowed check up on whether you've been stealing from them, it should be for serious crimes only.

There are potential downsides to everything.

dame

randylonghorn wrote: »

I'll admit I've just skimmed the thread, as I've heard (and been involved in) this argument far too many times before.

This kind of idea is only viable / safe if we assume that:
... all governments, everywhere and at every time, including the future, are / will be wholly benevolent, well-meaning and security-conscious;
... all agencies with access to such information are equally upstanding and well-meaning;
... all employees of such governments and agencies are incorruptible, and could not under any circumstances be induced to misuse or sell such information, no matter how much they were offered;
... all "crackers" with the ability to tunnel into the relevant computer systems, and extract information from them, are equally benevolent and upstanding citizens.

Anyone like to sign up to that set of assumptions?

Orwellian territory here, people!


Nor is there any guarantee that such a policy would prevent the majority of rapes, murders, etc. ... it might reduce the numbers all right, it might make the perpetrators easier to catch, but to assume it would almost eliminate such acts is extremely far-fetched.



"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin

Best post here so far, well done!

randylonghorn

dame wrote: »

Once again, people can vote. Do you generally vote for the person with the shiniest, slickest ad campaign?

No, and I doubt that Blue_Lagoon does, or that you do, Dame. Unfortunately, many people do, that's why politicians spend so much money on them. They seem to be particularly generous in their spending in the US ... perhaps that suggests something?

And unfortunately lots of people vote for equally silly reasons.



Edit: ... and thank you!

wyk

You can change your ID...I have. You can NOT change your DNA. You can put a stop payment on your credit card, and change the information on your ID. You can do neither with your DNA. Your DNA is a complete, and utterly irrefutable identity marker. Also, unlike an ID card, someone could steal your DNA easily by visiting your bathroom, and plant it at a crime scene, on a corpse, in a car, etc. etc. Once your ID is stolen, you can report it to the Gardai. If your credit cards are msising, you can inform your creditors. You can not do this with your DNA.

To address the topic, DNS marking 100% of humanity will not, by any means, reduce crime by nearly 100%. Crime is not committed solely by reasonable, law abiding, and law fearing individuals. It is as often as not committed by persons lacking in intelligence, whom act impulsively, and with little forethought. A good case in point are murders; a large amount are persons whom kill their spouses in a fit of rage. There are countless examples.

As far as literature goes, I also suggest reading 1984, by George Orwell.


WYK

humanji wrote: »

The government already knows everthing about you. Every detail of your lives can easily be recorded and used in any way, so I don't have any real objections to having my DNA stored. As pointed out, one problem would be with insurance etc, but that's only if they get their hands on it which, if it's done right, won't happen.

A lot of the arguments against are just scare mongering. In fact the same tactics are used by those who want to force biometric passports etc on us.

dame

wyk wrote: »

You can change your ID...I have. You can NOT change your DNA. You can put a stop payment on your credit card, and change the information on your ID. You can do neither with your DNA. Your DNA is a complete, and utterly irrefutable identity marker. Also, unlike an ID card, someone could steal your DNA easily by visiting your bathroom, and plant it at a crime scene, on a corpse, in a car, etc. etc. Once your ID is stolen, you can report it to the Gardai. If your credit cards are msising, you can inform your creditors. You can not do this with your DNA.

WYK

I doubt anyone's going to convict you of anything because your toenail clippings were found at the scene. You're safe enough that way.

Even when DNA evidence is found it's not always admitted into evidence: Wayne O'Donoghue anyne?

Black Swan

dame wrote: »

Once again, people can vote. Do you generally vote for the person with the shiniest, slickest ad campaign? If you do, you're an idiot.

For once we agree. The electorate in the USA, or rather those who were eligible to vote of the 300 million plus population (and the majority that did for Bush in the last two elections) were idiots casting their votes for a manufactured image (or a vested interest).

Some are now richer idiots, because they were heavily invested in oil and war related stocks. Less than half did not vote for him, and are stuck with Bush until the 2008 elections, including those in the State of California, who cast their electoral votes for Gore (2000) then Kerry (2004).

So to say simply that Americans voted for Bush is misleading? Yes, a simple majority voted for Bush to where it carried enough electoral college votes in enough states to win the election, but slightly less than half of those Americans voted against Bush. We are talking about millions of Americans that voted either for or against Bush.

johnnyskeleton

daveg wrote: »

With all the DNA testing carried out during the Madeleine McCann case I started thinking why not take a DNA sample from everyone at birth, across the globe which would feed into a global database. If a crime is then committed DNA could be extracted from the scene and the culprit could be prosecuted.

It seems that DNA samples are already collected from sex offenders. According to http://science.howstuffworks.com/dna-evidence.htm, In the US by law, authorities in all 50 states must collect DNA samples from convicted sex offenders for inclusion in CODIS (Database of DNA samples).

I realise that this “infringes” on our human rights but in the grand scheme of things is this not a good idea?

Apart from the civil rights issues, this is just not realistic.

First of all, it would be very expensive - you need a doctor to take a sample, and a biochemist/scientician to analyse the dna. This would cost millions every year. It would also need a lot of very good, very fast, very expensive computers to analyse the data.

Once you get over that, DNA is not very good evidence. The offenders DNA is, as far as I know, not usually found, especially in rape/sexual assault cases. DNA is not conclusive proof of the offence (and in many cases is no proof at all). Next consider that in many violent/sexual offences the offender is known to the victim and might have already had contact/sexual contact with the victim, so DNA is irrelevant. Consider as well that since DNA can pass without even direct contact (e.g. hair, breath, skin fragments etc) there is a high chance of the gardai investigating the wrong person.

The other major issue with DNA is that if it becomes universal practice to run a DNA test, then the absence of a DNA match would be used to acquit a person who otherwise would be convicted.

So with all those practical difficulties, the civil rights issues, and the fact that it would at best only help investigate a few cases (in the case of a missing child, where would they even find a sample?) makes it a completely worthless exercise.

Black Swan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

First of all, it would be very expensive - you need a doctor to take a sample, and a biochemist/scientician to analyse the dna. This would cost millions every year. It would also need a lot of very good, very fast, very expensive computers to analyse the data.

Agree, but millions would be an underestimate? Billions* would be closer? We have a world where, in many cases people are starving, and we are going to force them to take an expensive DNA test? And if they refuse the test, we are going to prosecute and criminalize them? Does anyone see the irony? If Jonathan Swift were alive, he could write a Modest Proposal II about this parody?

*The OP called for a "global database"?

wyk

dame wrote: »

I doubt anyone's going to convict you of anything because your toenail clippings were found at the scene. You're safe enough that way.

Even when DNA evidence is found it's not always admitted into evidence: Wayne O'Donoghue anyne?

In other words. The whole DNA debate is pointless anyways...

WYK

Conar

dame wrote: »

Maybe it was the only job available to you, for example if that is the only job which was available in the location you wanted (or needed to live in for family or whatever reasons) using the specialist skills that you have.

Regardless you still have a choice. You need not take the job, fair enough you might be broke but you still have a choice.

dame wrote: »

Do you plan on taking things from work?

:rolleyes:

dame wrote: »

No, I personally don't think work should be allowed check up on whether you've been stealing from them, it should be for serious crimes only.

So who decides what is a serious crime, and can the decision be updated in the furture, if so by whom?

dame wrote: »

There are potential downsides to everything.

Exactly, the potential downside to freedom is that people can/will take advantage and some will suffer, but I would still chose freedom every time.

On a seperate point I wish people would stop saying that people that point out the potential flaws of the idea are indymedia readers etc, surely that argument could be turned back on the paranoid people that think that the country is a crime riddled dangerous kip????



EDIT - Actually, how would we treat people from other countries.
Would we refuse access to anyone that refuses to give a DNA sample?

dame

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So to say simply that Americans voted for Bush is misleading? Yes, a simple majority voted for Bush

A majority is all it takes. That's how voting works.

Still waiting for that apology.

johnnyskeleton

dame wrote: »

A majority is all it takes. That's how voting works.

Or a minority in the case of the 2000 election.

dame

Conar wrote: »

Regardless you still have a choice. You need not take the job, fair enough you might be broke but you still have a choice.

Right, go on the dole rather than take a job where carrying a mobile phone is mandatory. :rolleyes:

Conar wrote: »

On a seperate point I wish people would stop saying that people that point out the potential flaws of the idea are indymedia readers etc, surely that argument could be turned back on the paranoid people that think that the country is a crime riddled dangerous kip????

Who said the country is a drime riddled dangerous kip?

dame

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or a minority in the case of the 2000 election.

Americans let them get away with that.

wyk

dame wrote: »

A majority is all it takes. That's how voting works.

Still waiting for that apology.

Not in America. America has a republican form of electoral college. The electoral college is NOT bound by any Federal law requiring it to vote dependant upon how the citizens of the state they represet vote. The electorates are chosen by the states. In a handful of states, the state laws require them to vote either as a whole dependant upon the citizens they represent, or as a percentage(if 50% vote Republican, 50% of the electrorate would vote republican). I most states, this is not the case. The electorate in most states usually places all their votes for whomever wins the majority of the citizenb vote. But, as I said, in most cases they are not required by law to do so. So, a majority vote by the US citizens does not mean those votes will translate directly into a candidate winning.

WYK

Conar

dame wrote: »

Right, go on the dole rather than take a job where carrying a mobile phone is mandatory. :rolleyes:

Are you just trying to be awkward?
Someone made a comparrison between a DNA database and mobile phones being used to track people.
The point was made that it was your choice to have a mobile or not.
You asked what if a job meant you HAD to have a mobile.
It has been pointed out several times that you can CHOOSE to take that job or not.
I can tell that you are intelligent enough to understand all this so why are you being so odd about accepting it?

dame wrote: »

Who said the country is a drime riddled dangerous kip?

No one did directly, but if the country is not is such a bad way then why add something with the potential for so much harm?
I was just trying to reinforce my point.

Black Swan

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or a minority in the case of the 2000 election.

Ha Ha! You are well informed! Dimpled chads in Dade County? Misalignment of the voting ballots? George Bush's brother Jeb Bush is Governor of Florida and for all practical purposes running the election that gave his brother just enough electoral votes to win? Gore receiving over half of all the votes in the USA for president, but the Electoral College awarding the election to Bush?

*If I remember correctly, Gore had about a half-million more votes cast for him than Bush? Democracy in the USA?

Parsley

randylonghorn wrote: »

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin

I read the first post and that quote sprung to mind.

jimmycrackcorm

Next stop bring on Minority Report - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/taglines

Black Swan

randylonghorn wrote: »

Orwellian territory here, people!

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either." Benjamin Franklin

Agree with randy and Ben (B!ue goes into SHOCK after publicly stating that she agrees with randy)

FruitLover

Consider this proposal: Privacy is a basic human right.

humanji wrote: »

The government already knows everthing about you

You grossly overestimate the abilities and organizational skills of the Irish goverment.

humanji wrote: »

Are we in America? Do we have the same government? The US people don't have a lot of power over what laws get passed. In Ireland we do.

You've also got a lot of faith in the average Irish voter. One thing I've learnt since my long-lost youth is that people are people, no matter where you are. And people are morons. If this happened in the US, it can happen in Ireland - you're fooling yourself if you think the Irish ugg-boot and Jack & Jones shirt-wearing populous is any more intelligent than their American equivalent.

humanji wrote: »

But what if an illegitimate company got your bank account details? Or your credit card details? Or your social security details? All of these can be useful in the wrong hands yet we don't get too worried about them.

Speak for yourself.

humanji wrote: »

And conversly, just because it's happened in one place, doesn't mean it must happen everywhere else. The US pride themselves on their freedom, but willingly gave it away. We're not that stupid, are we?

There's that misplaced faith in the lowest common denominator again...

Don't mean to pick on you in particular, Humanji, you just make a lot of points I disagree with

HelterSkelter wrote: »

Typical response, call someone a socialist or indymedia reader to try to discredit their genuine concerns.

Ha, I think there should be a lefty version of Godwin's law on Boards, where if someone compares you to Indymedia, they automatically lose the argument.

Red Hand

There are always ways around such an act, anyway OP. Many DNA savvy criminals have contaminated crime scenes by just dumping a load of hair from barbershops over the crimescene.

OwenM

The paranoia about "what they could do" on this thread is quite staggering.

How does a DNA database maintained by Dept of justice mean the local DVD rental shop will know about your red-headed mothers heart condition? There are means to calm the paranoids - valium

Seriously - if we could start by making it mandatory for DNA of anyone convicted of any criminal offence involving violence, organised crime or sex to be held indefinitely on a system administered by a govt agency that was subject to audit then it would go along way to securing convictions.......

TheVan

Several things:

Firstly, it would be very useful to read this article by Professor Conor Gearty (by no means a "right-wing" individual!).

Secondly, many people are blinded by the "CSI-effect". Identification of DNA is not proof of the crime committed. It is merely persuasive. It is just another piece of evidence. In court, an expert presents the probabilities that this DNA matches the DNA of the accused. He cannot then comment on the likelihood that said person committed the crime.

wyk

OwenM wrote: »

The paranoia about "what they could do" on this thread is quite staggering.

How does a DNA database maintained by Dept of justice mean the local DVD rental shop will know about your red-headed mothers heart condition? There are means to calm the paranoids - valium

Seriously - if we could start by making it mandatory for DNA of anyone convicted of any criminal offence involving violence, organised crime or sex to be held indefinitely on a system administered by a govt agency that was subject to audit then it would go along way to securing convictions.......

This is how it is done in the USA, and it is quite effective. But this isn't the OP's point. The OP wants EVERYONE born to be DNA finger pritned. An IDEA the likes of which poeple have a right to fear. A LOT of bad things can be done in such an environment. Paranoia keeps one alive and healthy far longer than trusting the government will...

WYK

Red Hand

wyk wrote: »

Paranoia keeps one alive and healthy far longer than trusting the government will...

WYK

Good phrase! Must remember that.

Conar

OwenM wrote: »

Seriously - if we could start by making it mandatory for DNA of anyone convicted of any criminal offence involving violence, organised crime or sex to be held indefinitely on a system administered by a govt agency that was subject to audit then it would go along way to securing convictions.......

I don't think many people have an issue with this form of a database.
Its a mandatory database of all citizens that gives people the willies.

randylonghorn

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Agree with randy and Ben (B!ue goes into SHOCK after publicly stating that she agrees with randy)

LOL ... I knew this day would come!! \o/

FruitLover

OwenM wrote: »

if we could start by making it mandatory for DNA of anyone convicted of any criminal offence involving violence, organised crime or sex to be held indefinitely on a system administered by a govt agency that was subject to audit then it would go along way to securing convictions.......

This isn't the issue under discussion - it's one thing asking for detailed (e.g. genetic) records to be kept of convicted serious criminals (who IMO have given up their right to the privacy that I believe law-abiders are entitled to). It's another altogether to expect the same of the general innocent population.

2Scoops

Of course the whole plan wouldn't reduce the number of rapes/murders at all - only increase the number of convictions. Quite different, you'll find.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

randylonghorn

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting! ... though not totally surprising, tbh.

Though in fairness the US has a huge population, so you ARE talking massive economies of scale, so I'm not sure a per capita comparison is altogether useful.

Still, it definitely indicates something about the way politics in this country has gone / is going in a general sense at least.

Reku

Not read all the thread so sorry if this is a repeat point but the simple reason why this should not happen is that it, like every other system controlled by people, would be open to abuse.
Say you were a strong speaker against the ruling body, oh lookie we can clone your DNA and plant it at the scene and since no-one will dispute this DNA evidence we'll be rid of you.
It's the whole reason so much evidence is needed in any case, any piece of evidence could have been planted/tainted/misinterpretted, etc.... It's a system dependent on humans, i.e. dependent upon fallable entities.

Terry

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hundreds of candidates against two candidates.

Richard W

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any security on such information, basically. There is no such thing as a perfect security system.

Look at it this way:
Wealthy politician murders his wife and her lover in anger. Makes it look like a burglar.
Heads off to his local civil servant with access to the national DNA database. Hands over a hefty sum of money to jiggle with the figures - switch his DNA profile with that of a petty criminal, or even just some local man at random.

Local man/petty criminal goes to jail permanently - it's DNA right, can't be beaten?

A global database would be even more troublesome. In some of the more corrupt countries, you'd probably find a culture of visiting foreigners being jailed for crimes purely because the criminal had enough money to buy someone off.

In fairness though, couldn't you just bribe a jury these days? DNA records don't really have anything to do with making people more corrupt.

MooseJam

by the way 99.9% is way over the odds, maybe 30% would be a fairer reflection

syklops

I am completely against that idea and I am completely against this:

digitally-yours wrote: »

CCTV

If the GOV has the money for this

Why? Because it gives a smart criminal an easy way of staying uncaught. Lets say I want to murder someone, and I know my DNA is on file, then I make sure none of my DNA is anywhere near the crimescene, or on the victim, and I plant someone else's. All you need is a piece of hair underneath the victims finger nail, of some one you dont like, CSI arrive, find it, and that person is put in prison pending hearing but they know he is quilty so they let him langish in prison for a few months. Case comes to bear:

Prosecution: How do you explain your DNA being found at the scene?
Defendent: I cant, I never met the woman, never been to her flat...
Prosecution: A likely tale....

As for CCTV, and this is the thing I never understood, what stops someone changing the time on them? now that CCTV is going digital, its even easier to change data maliciously.

The more information the government has, the more powerful the government becomes. I know I sound like a conspiracy theory nut, but most people dont trust our government as it is. Would you then trust them with your DNA? What if they decide to replace elections with biometric/ or dna testing terminals instead ballot boxes. and they get in again in a landslide win? I bet anyone who stands up against them will soon be convicted of a crime thanks to DNA evidence.

I know it sounds far fetched, but its not beyond the realm of possibility.

growler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Apart from the civil rights issues, this is just not realistic.

First of all, it would be very expensive - you need a doctor to take a sample, and a biochemist/scientician to analyse the dna. This would cost millions every year. It would also need a lot of very good, very fast, very expensive computers to analyse the data.

Once you get over that, DNA is not very good evidence. The offenders DNA is, as far as I know, not usually found, especially in rape/sexual assault cases. DNA is not conclusive proof of the offence (and in many cases is no proof at all). Next consider that in many violent/sexual offences the offender is known to the victim and might have already had contact/sexual contact with the victim, so DNA is irrelevant. Consider as well that since DNA can pass without even direct contact (e.g. hair, breath, skin fragments etc) there is a high chance of the gardai investigating the wrong person.

The other major issue with DNA is that if it becomes universal practice to run a DNA test, then the absence of a DNA match would be used to acquit a person who otherwise would be convicted.

So with all those practical difficulties, the civil rights issues, and the fact that it would at best only help investigate a few cases (in the case of a missing child, where would they even find a sample?) makes it a completely worthless exercise.

I don't buy the civil rights argument, protecting the rights of scum not to be caught more easily should not take priority over the rights of the law abiding majority to live in a (more) crime free society.

Everyone seems to be making an assumption that DNA evidence would be the sole criteria used to acquit convict, but any conviction would have to be based on other evidence in support: motive, means, etc.

Buiding a comprehensive DNA database wouldn't have to be done overnight, collecting DNA from all known criminals or those arrested on suspicion of a crime is a good starting point, most people won't ever fall into this category..but then most people don't commit the types of violent crime that DNA evidence would be most helpful in securing convictions for. The technology for making this happen is not hard to source and the money we currently spend on having our inept Gardai chasing their tails, court time etc. would probabaly outweigh it.

There is obviously potential for misuse, as with anything, but to "frame" someone using DNA would also require a rather elaborate conspiracy to set them up, rapists, murderers, serial criminals would be hard pressed to make this happen.

While having a DNA database wouldn't necessarily reduce the number of assualts happening overnight, quickly catching, convicting and locking the perpetrators up ..would.

dame

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, he admitted killing the child and was convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter but if the DNA evidence had been admitted then he might have been found guilty of murder (the DNA (semen found in palm of child's hand) could have given a motive for murder).

I was just pointing out that DNA evidence might not even be admitted in a trial, and certainly won't be the only evidence used to convict someone, so all the conspiracy theorists afraid of being convicted of all sorts of crimes simply because someone robbed their toenail clippings or hair cuttings can calm down.

User45701

MooseJam wrote: »

by the way 99.9% is way over the odds, maybe 30% would be a fairer reflection

Very true, there is no way to stop a crime of rage/love/passion ect