DNA database - good idea?

Laminations

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0119/dna.html

The civil liberties crowd are already all over this. I think its a great idea to help solve crimes in the future. Please don't use the inevitable camel's nose / slippery slope argument to suggest we will end up on this system and won't be able to have affairs or the like over fears our spouses would track us down via our tell tale DNA!!!

The way its set up you have to qualify yourself for inclusion by committing and being convicted of a serious crime.

With 70% recidivism I'd presume criminals commit quite a lot of the crimes, now they can leave a calling card

MackDeToaster

I'd like to know more detail, as it stands I can't tell enough. E.g. what does 'taken from suspects' mean ? If there is a crime, say a murder, and 300 people are questioned, will they all have their dna sampled ? If someone is found and convicted, not necessarily from this dna sampling, will those samples be immediately destroyed ?

I only have to look at the UK where the government is illegally storing dna to see what way this is probably going to go, so on the basis of that I'm saying it's bad. The slippery slope nearly always happens so it's a very good argument imo.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

I have no issues with a convicited criminals DNA being kept on file, but a suspects DNA should be gotten rid of, if/when they are cleared, or someone else is convicted of the crime, and I could maybe support a system like that.

Sleepy

I still don't understand people's paranoia about their personal details being on file with a law enforement agency. It's not like you could be framed by having synthesized dna placed in a crime scene by a cop or something!

Would definitely agree with them taking DNA from convicted prisoners.

Laminations

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/dna-database-moves-a-step-closer-2022160.html

'Those not charged or acquitted will have their samples removed either on application or, where no application is made, after the expiry of a fixed default period. A watchdog, headed by a senior judge, will oversee the system, under the proposals'.

Seems reasonable, I'm quite sure that I'll never be a suspect in a serious criminal investigation let alone commit a serious criminal offence, they don't just pluck suspects out of thin air so again it seems you have to qualify for inclusion on the database (even for the short term). And they'll still need other corroborating evidence for any trial I'd imagine.

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The government having your DNA does not make you guilty of anything - it just makes it easier for them to catch you / identify you if you do commit 'a serious crime'. They have your photo on file if you have a passport, does that make you guilty of anything??

nesf

Seems reasonable to me to be honest. The I'm one of those crazy people who wouldn't have an issue walking around with a biometric identity card on me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr. Baltar

No! No! No!

Give me a bag of your spit and I can frame you for anything even if you are an upstanding member of society.

DNA database of convicted criminals only!

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the proposal is for nothing like that. So, what's your point?

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't see why not

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Location tracking is very different. I'm not, nor is the government suggesting micro-tracking. But sure if you have a mobile phone they can track your whereabouts retrospectively from the pings off masts!!! Back to the rotary telephone for you!! Big Brother is watching :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because it's unnecessary since the vast majority of people never commit serious crimes. We only need DNA samples from those who are convicted of serious crimes or suspected of serious crimes in order to help the Gardaí in doing their jobs.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

deadhead13

The more DNA that is taken the less useful it is, since it increases the likelihood of a false match.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would also be more controversial and far more expensive to implement and manage. Ditto with tagging everyone for tracking.

Red_Marauder

I don't get it. I have to say I do subscribe to the theory that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
DNA Technology could be a huge aid to the justice system in this country. If the data is in the hands of the police, what exactly is the core problem?

I think a great reason to support the storing of information of non-convicts is that such people could potentially be ruled out of any subsequent cases they where they are again accused.

Because it's unnecessary since the vast majority of people never commit serious crimes.

I'm not sure what the point about necessity is here, the actual necesity as it pertains to efficiency? Storage of genetic information as it frequently occurs in the field of genetic science isn't particularly difficult.

nesf

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point about necessity is here, the actual necesity as it pertains to efficiency? Storage of genetic information as it frequently occurs in the field of genetic science isn't particularly difficult.

The problem isn't storing it, it's the expense of requiring people to go out and collect it all, monitor collection so there are no abuses and investigations into whether people are evading collection and so on. Simply collecting it while people are in Garda custody is far more trivial in comparison.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red_Marauder

nesf wrote: »

The problem isn't storing it, it's the expense of requiring people to go out and collect it all, monitor collection so there are no abuses and investigations into whether people are evading collection and so on. Simply collecting it while people are in Garda custody is far more trivial in comparison.

Ah okay I see your point. In that case no I agree on the issue of necessity. Sampling individuals in custody, fine; sampling every last man, woman and child, not nrecessary.

James G

I think it's a great idea. It's not as if everyone in the country has to go out and submit samples, it's just people suspected of comitting a crime.

fontinalis

It can be a useful tool but it's not the be all and end all of crime fighting. DNA samples can end up at crime scenes indirectly and can also be planted .

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eventually sure, but you'd have to go out at take and police the taking of 4.5 million odd samples to bring us to the point where we'd just need heel prick samples and such. This would obviously be more expensive.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

aidan_walsh

nesf wrote: »

Eventually sure, but you'd have to go out at take and police the taking of 4.5 million odd samples to bring us to the point where we'd just need heel prick samples and such. This would obviously be more expensive.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or just have a quick word with Temple Street Hospital, who have all their samples since 1984.

That said, I personally don't have a problem with a DNA database.

lugha

nesf wrote: »

Because it's unnecessary since the vast majority of people never commit serious crimes. We only need DNA samples from those who are convicted of serious crimes or suspected of serious crimes in order to help the Gardaí in doing their jobs.

Not quite. Ideally we could like DNA samples from everybody who will commit a serious crime in the future. Sometimes they may find a sample at a crime scene but have nobody to match it to.
I have never understood the argument against having a DNA database for everybody. I would be perfectly happy to provide a sample. Where's the problem?

MackDeToaster

I can't believe people are advocating taking dna of everyone in the country from birth, unbelievable. Anyone ever hear of the phrase 'innocent UNLESS proven guilty' ?

Note that it's 'unless', not 'until'. 'Until' means that you are already a suspect, and the assumption is that it is only a matter of time before you commit a crime, as does sampling dna from birth and the like.

This is a huge reversal of the rights and roles of citizens and the state. Would you enjoy living in a police state ? Why not go the entire logical route with the entire lack of privacy thing, put everything on your Facebook account viewable to everyone, set up cctv and webcams in every room in your house and broadcast it to the world, post up your credit card numbers and bank account details. After all, if you've nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear, where's the harm?

As the infamous quote goes, 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'.

A good article on the subject can be found here..

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Seth Brundle

deadhead13 wrote: »

The more DNA that is taken the less useful it is, since it increases the likelihood of a false match.

If a false match caqn be made that easily then it sounds like its not reliable at all!

lugha

MackDeToaster wrote: »

A good article on the subject can be found here..

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565

Too long, too long. Can you summarize what is says?

nesf

lugha wrote: »

Not quite. Ideally we could like DNA samples from everybody who will commit a serious crime in the future. Sometimes they may find a sample at a crime scene but have nobody to match it to.
I have never understood the argument against having a DNA database for everybody. I would be perfectly happy to provide a sample. Where's the problem?

I'd be happy to give one too however the cost of going out and collecting and more importantly ensuring we get a sample from everyone and policing this would be very complex and cost a lot of "man hours".