DNA tests ...or else???

[detective-boy]

Let me put jiggajagga's question slightly differently then:

Why should a policeman visit anyone when there is no reason at all to suspect that they have committed a crime?

Because they ALWAYS have been able to ask questions of any person, whether suspected or not, under one of the oldest concepts of Common Law in the UK. There may not be any obligation on the person asked to reply, but there is nothing to stop the question being put.

Do you really mean to suggest that the police should not be able to speak to anyone, about anything, in any context, without some specific grounds to suspect????

 

[detective-boy]

Also, if the police asked me why I did not want to give them my DNA sample I would simply answer "because I have done nothing wrong so why are you knocking at my door"

Fine. You and many others no doubt. Do you think that the police will mind? Will they fuck. They will simply get down to the task of investigating your background to see if there are any other sources of information to either suggest implication or elimination. The DNA screen is simply a means by which those who are willing can rapidly eliminate themselves, saving themselves any further attention and freeing police resources to concentrate on others who may still be the suspect, hopefully meaning that the murderer (who in this case is assessed as VERY likely to re-offend) will be caught before there are any more victims. Not to use the technology available would be negligent.

 

[detective-boy]

How is this different from the 140,000 or so children on teh DNA register who have never committed a crime.

My understanding is that these samples came from children who had been arrested. The screening samples will be taken from people who are volunteers and who have NOT been arrested. I have said before, and I will say again, that I have an issue with retaining samples from arrested (as opposed to charged, as opposed to convicted) suspects but that is a different issue.

It is all well and good saying its written down it will be destroyed, but the fact remains if you have not done anything wrong, you should not be forced to give a DNA sample.

You won't be. If you don't then all that will happen is that traditional enquiries will be pursued instead to establish whether or not there is anything to implicate or eliminate you.

 

[detective-boy]

[i wonder how police caught murderers before dna...]
[one killer, four thousand to be tested for dna, good usage of police time that, clever detective work that]

Four thousand to be eliminated or implicated. Could use DNA screening - cost maybe 2,000 officer hours and 4,000 scientist hours. Each person troubled for about 30 minutes. Oh, and any match (or non-match) being totally reliable in eliminating or implicating the subject.

Alternatively could do it the "old way", researching the background of each one, perhaps eliminating 1,000 at this stage - cost maybe 8,000 officer hours. Then by visiting each of the remaining 3,000 to establish whether or not they have an alibi for the time in question - cost perhaps another 6,000 officer hours, perhaps eliminating a further 2,500 (if you are lucky). Remaining 500 then subject to having their alibi tested - any named witnesses to their whereabouts being interviewed, cost perhaps another 4,000 hours, perhaps eliminating all but a couple of dozen ... and probably never being able to take it any further than that. So maybe eight or nine times the cost, to achieve an indecisive result. And, oh yeah, much, much more likely to lead to the wrong suspect being identified as a possible and maybe even convicted.

Yep. That sounds sensible.

Don't try and be sarcastic about something you know jack shit about.

 

[detective-boy]

Whose seen all the banks of face scanning cameras up in London? Literally 15 cameras on huge polls, they then match your face using FR software matched to drivers licenses and passports. Then everyone wonders why they want everyone to have an ID card. Get us all in the system, tracked scanned etc.

You probably been looking at the Congestion Charge camera's, mate. They have automatic number plate reading but no facial recognition capacity.

The only large scale facial recognition system trialled in London has been in Newham. It hasn't worked well. I doubt if it will be extended. The cameras look like any other street CCTV camera. There is no link to photos on licenses, passports, etc. The only linked database is one of suspects who are wanted in the area, subject to bail, etc. conditions banning them from an area and such like. In the case of any match the automated decision is passed to an operator for a human decision (as required in the Data protection Act 1998) and then, if confirmed, leads to the despatch of an officer to go and speak to the possible suspect to find out if it is, or is not who they first thought it was ... just like if a patrolling officer (like the "Beat Bobbies" everyone apparently loves) saw someone they thought was wanted and stopped to speak to them to find out.

 

[detective-boy]

Hypothetical question.

Those who say they would not co-operate with the provision of a DNA sample for elimination purposes because they do not trust the police not to misuse it, would you supply one if you could be sure it would be simply used for that purpose and then destroyed?

I am interested in understanding the actual issue being objected to, rather than having a mix of the two which cannot be separated in any way.

 

[TAE]

To my mind there are indeed two separate issues:
The pressure put on people to do something they might not want to do.
The reason why they might not want to do it.

Because they ALWAYS have been able to ask questions of any person, whether suspected or not, under one of the oldest concepts of Common Law in the UK. There may not be any obligation on the person asked to reply, but there is nothing to stop the question being put.

Do you really mean to suggest that the police should not be able to speak to anyone, about anything, in any context, without some specific grounds to suspect????

You should know that's not what this is about - and you've actually answered a different question from what I asked. Why should the police be harrassing random people?

Yeah, of course they can ask random people like the little old lady down the road a few questions (in a polite and friendly way) - what I am objecting to is people put under pressure to give DNA with the threat that the police might come round if they don't.

 

[Azrael]

I have said before, and I will say again, that I have an issue with retaining samples from arrested (as opposed to charged, as opposed to convicted) suspects but that is a different issue.

I'd say it's linked since the disgraceful retention of innocent people's DNA will make many people distrustful and unwilling to provide samples. See the Dispatches on Monday where Peter Hitchens interviewed a mother and son whose family had a 2 geneation history of police membership, who, until her son was wrongly arrested, had been as fervent supporters of cops as you'd find? The experience of her son's DNA being kept after he was victim of mistaken identity soured her and her family towards the police. If people like them can become so distrustful, anyone can, and the more it's publicised, the less co-operation the police get.

How can you justify retaining the samples of acquitted people while you oppose keeping them from arrested people BTW? That does just as must to shatter the presumption of innocence.

If the police keep going on like this, they're going to destroy public support. Only so many innocent people can have their most basic civil rights shat on before majority opinion turns. Keep taking the DNA of kids and law abiding subjects. The excessive restrictions the inevitable reaction will eventually bring in will undermine the fight against the real criminals.

Enjoy the banquet of excessive power while it lasts. The bill will be a high one.

 

[nickalito]

Question

How would you know that you were on the database? is there somewhere to go to have your name taken off if you find out is on there for no good reason?

 

[bluestreak]

There is no legal basis for retaining samples provided entirely by consent, and never has been. There is, in fact, a legal basis for action against anyone retaining any such sample.

And the scienece doesn't work in such a way that if a relative "nearly" matches then you get thrown up as a suspect. There are some instances in which it can be used but it is not usually the case (and it does not appear that it will be in the foreseeable future).

ok, well thanks for answering. what about the database of kids whose samples were kept http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4720328.stm did they give consent? what happens if you get picked up for somethign you didn't do and refuse to give your consent? if they take it how can you know 100% that they destroy it?

 

[bluestreak]

Hypothetical question.

Those who say they would not co-operate with the provision of a DNA sample for elimination purposes because they do not trust the police not to misuse it, would you supply one if you could be sure it would be simply used for that purpose and then destroyed?

I am interested in understanding the actual issue being objected to, rather than having a mix of the two which cannot be separated in any way.

yeah, no worries. why not? it's not the use of dna testing to catch murderers and rapists that i object to, it's the potential risks of handing over my dna sample to a government and police force in general that bothers me. if someone came around, took a swab, ran it through a machine quickly and without keeping a record of it and then said yes or no i don't think i could have a problem with that.

 

[fela fan]

All that the DNA screening is meant to achieve is an opportunity for those willing to cooperate to immediately remove themselves from the need to provide any alibi details, etc., allowing scarce resources to be focussed on those who remain.

So, presumed guilty until proven innocent eh. Rock on baby, this is modern progress in the fight against all that raging crime in the streets of britain.

[scarce resourses? bullshit man, they're all busy pushing pens to look after the demands of the system]

Can anybody see the rapid descent into collective insanity that britain is taking?

Are you a robot detective? Coz all you talk about are the systems of things, not the humans that are subsumed by the all consuming all conquering system.

Welcome to the machine, the 21st century God. Yeah, we killed him off alright, and that should have given us our freedom. But then we chose technology and the system to take over. Seemingly we need to submit to a higher authority.

Fucking madness, not freedom, seems to be the menu of the day.

 

[fela fan]

Four thousand to be eliminated or implicated. Could use DNA screening - cost maybe 2,000 officer hours and 4,000 scientist hours. Each person troubled for about 30 minutes. Oh, and any match (or non-match) being totally reliable in eliminating or implicating the subject.

Alternatively could do it the "old way", researching the background of each one, perhaps eliminating 1,000 at this stage - cost maybe 8,000 officer hours. Then by visiting each of the remaining 3,000 to establish whether or not they have an alibi for the time in question - cost perhaps another 6,000 officer hours, perhaps eliminating a further 2,500 (if you are lucky). Remaining 500 then subject to having their alibi tested - any named witnesses to their whereabouts being interviewed, cost perhaps another 4,000 hours, perhaps eliminating all but a couple of dozen ... and probably never being able to take it any further than that. So maybe eight or nine times the cost, to achieve an indecisive result. And, oh yeah, much, much more likely to lead to the wrong suspect being identified as a possible and maybe even convicted.

Yep. That sounds sensible.

Don't try and be sarcastic about something you know jack shit about.

You don't mention why there should be so many as four thousand that need eliminating from the enquiries.

I happen to be looking at this from a different angle to you, so even if i don't know how things work in police detective work, it matters not to my argument. I'm coming from a different context to you, a human one. You're just a human that has succumbed to the system, who talks systems, who is part of it. I decline to hand over my freedoms and my humanity to a system. You explain everything in such an objective way, all the time the government are creating the orwell vision. But this seems to not matter to you coz you've handed in your human values in order to become a 'good citizen'.

It's funny how the government and its agents are in this constant fight against all those terrorists and criminals.

It's really really funny. Y'know why? Coz they are the worst of the fucking lot. And you're going on about methods they can use to control us better. Madness.

 

[atitlan]

You don't mention why there should be so many as four thousand that need eliminating from the enquiries.

Exactly.

No way are those 4000 people suspects.

This is one of two things - either the police haven't got a clue who their suspects really are and they are therefore going on a fishing expedition (unacceptable) or they are deliberatly trying to get the DNA from as many people as possible in order to help the government build up the national database that they want, but which the public don't want them to have (equally unacceptable).

Only if the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting someone of having actually commited the crime is it appropriate to ask them to clear themselves. In this case, as fela fan suggested, the police have gone down a 'guilty until proved innocent' route.

 

[fela fan]

Only if the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting someone of having actually commited the crime is it appropriate to ask them to clear themselves. In this case, as fela fan suggested, the police have gone down a 'guilty until proved innocent' route.

And, i might suggest, they have done that coz that is the current political climate. Or at least the political climate i feel exists from my position afar. One, of course, set in motion by the leaders of the state. Everything this government have done, basically since september 11, 2001, seems to be based on removing british people's freedoms, and their right to be free from state interference.

Furthermore, people are beginning to be labelled as guilty of this or guilty of that, way way ahead of any crime, never mind a court of law. Not that many years ago this request for 4000 voluntary dna tests would have been laughed out of sight. In fact, it would never have even been thought of.

This labour government are proving to be a nightmare from 1000 hells for those that still understand the concept of freedom and everyone's individual, human, rights to live peaceful lives free from political and police interference. As for the others who are deeply asleep, what the fuck is going to wake them up? To be honest, it may well be too late.

 

[fela fan]

In this case, as fela fan suggested, the police have gone down a 'guilty until proved innocent' route.

In fact, this is the route as advocated by george bush, president of british foreign policy, and, these days, increasingly president of british home affairs policy.

He told us that if we weren't with him, then we were against him. He said if we weren't a friend, we were the enemy.

That easily leads to a climate where you have suspicions of guilt if you don't show you're innocent. This is where britain is headed, ie the american way. I really would like to know why so many british people either can't see this, or turn a blind eye.

 

[Imagine]

One of the officers from the enquiry admitted in an interview on Radio 2 that the samples would be kept until there is a conviction. So, in theory, they could be stored indefinitely.

Don't assume that DNA evidence is 100% reliable either:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/541529.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2836063.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08112003.html

 

[detective-boy]

You should know that's not what this is about - and you've actually answered a different question from what I asked. Why should the police be harrassing random people?

They are not harassing "random" people. The investigation has sufficient evidence to define a particular group by description and location, of manageable size, where there are grounds to suspect the actual offender will be found.

So they are in the process of eliminating them. This process will hopefully identify the actual offender. It's what the police do. It's just that there is now a technology available which allows them to do it more quickly and will (in some ways) less intrusion into the lives of the innocent members of the group.

What do you suspect as an alternative Sherlock?

 

[detective-boy]

How can you justify retaining the samples of acquitted people while you oppose keeping them from arrested people BTW? That does just as must to shatter the presumption of innocence.

I don't (as the quote you use suggests). Where did I say I did? Or you just making assumptions?

 

[detective-boy]

ok, well thanks for answering. what about the database of kids whose samples were kept

So far as I know, they were taken from people who were arrested. That is the precise distinction I was making - the volunteers are not arrested.

 

[detective-boy]

if someone came around, took a swab, ran it through a machine quickly and without keeping a record of it and then said yes or no i don't think i could have a problem with that.

Sadly the technology is not that quick. There is currently no way that the sample or the data (the profile obtained) can be kept within the sight / possession of the person whilst it is processed. Maybe one day it will be!

That said, for many years elimination fingerprints have been taken and, if requested, have been returned to be destroyed (ripped up) in the presence of the person providing them. No-one seems to have been so paranoid that the police might have sneakily kept them (e.g. by photocopying them) before returning them.

 

[detective-boy]

You don't mention why there should be so many as four thousand that need eliminating from the enquiries.

Because that is how many people there are in the defined geographical area fitting the defined descriptive parameters. There might just as well have been 20 or 2000000 in other circumstances ...

And I am not arguing from the point of view of "the system" - I am a professional investigator who would wish to use all reasonable techniques to identify and convict dangerous suspects. Because I actually care about trying to protect potential future victims, whilst applying appropriate levels of protection to the freedom of us all. Rather than ensuring the death and devastation of many individuals so that the rest of us have some more "freedom".

(Noticed you didn't come up with any alternative suggestions by the way - typical approach - slag everything, suggest nothing ...)

 

[detective-boy]

No way are those 4000 people suspects.

No, but they fit some parameters which have been defined as a result of the investigation so far.

IT IS NOTHING NEW FOR FUCKS SAKE - do you lot ever pay attention to what is going on around you?

Suspect seen escaping in a white van, part index number ----ABC. Computer throws up 200 in the London area - police go round and enquire of the owners. Victim produces photofit - police put it on Crimewatch - public suggest 20 different names - police go round and enquire into each. IT'S WHAT HAPPENS - IF IT DIDN'T YOU'D NEVER SOLVE ANYTHING.

 

[detective-boy]

One of the officers from the enquiry admitted in an interview on Radio 2 that the samples would be kept until there is a conviction. So, in theory, they could be stored indefinitely.

That is because we have lots of laws which protect the rights of suspects (quite rightly). The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act requires all material which MAY be relevant to a criminal case be retained until the conclusion of the case IN CASE the defence suddenly come up with some previously unexpected defence which may depend on the material still being available. The profiles will NOT be kept on the National Database, they will NOT be available to any other enquiry, they will NOT be analysed in any other way.

By the way, your use of the phrase "admitted in an interview" suggests that the police were lying until some tenacious journo pressed the point - the only reason it's a surprise is because few people bother to find out what the law actually is - they just pontificate about it (and, if you hadn't noticed, it's why I post here, in the hope that I can do something to reduce that level of ignorance).

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well, I've seen the light. You've convinced me. I was wrong, all of you were right.

It is clearly too much to ask 4000 white or light skinned men aged 20-40 to co-operate with detectives, searching for a brutal killer thought likely to kill again, by giving a DNA swab. It would be the First Step Down The Slippery Slope Towards A Police State.

And as a clincher, as has just been shown definitively by Fela Fan, it would be Helping George Bush.

I also now accept that it would be wholly wrong, and also the First Step Down The Slippery Slope Towards A Police State, for cops to talk to anyone unless they had evidence them to suspect them of a crime.

OK, but we need to take this further. We have to give the police firm guidelines as to how such investigations should be carried out in an ethical manner in keeping with the highest respect for civil liberties.

Would any of you geniuses care to suggest what these guidelines might say?

 

[TAE]

They are not harassing "random" people.

If the police were to insist on talking to someone only because that person did not want to give a DNA sample, I would call that harassing.

The investigation has sufficient evidence to define a particular group by description and location, of manageable size, where there are grounds to suspect the actual offender will be found.

So is someone not giving a sample a reasonable reason for suspicion?

What do you suspect as an alternative Sherlock?

I've told you before, it's not my job to come up with ways of preventing crime. Why should that stop me from saying that I think certain behaviour is not acceptable to me?

 

[detective-boy]

If the police were to insist on talking to someone only because that person did not want to give a DNA sample, I would call that harassing.


So is someone not giving a sample a reasonable reason for suspicion?

Jesus fucking Christ. Stop inventing some fucking fictitious link that isn't there.

There is a group of 4000 possible suspects. In the old days research / interviews / alibi checking would have been the only way of progressing the enquiry in this direction (check out the Yorkshire Ripper enquiry for instance).

Nowadays DNA will positively implicate or eliminate them. Those that voluntarily provide a sample are instantly eliminated (unless they are "the one"). The police then go on to eliminate the rest by the old traditional methods.

There's no fucking threats about it.

And no. Refusing a sample is NOT NOt NOT NOT a reason for "suspecting" that the person is guilty (lots of people will refuse I am sure - do you think the murder was committed by a fucking coach tour???). It is simply that they have not been eliminated from the pool.

 

[TAE]

Right. Thank you.



This following quote from the first post is the attitude I was objecting to, an attitude which you seemed to be supporting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1716705,00.html
She was then asked what would happen if an innocent man who did not want his DNA taken due to his belief that the police would not destroy his sample after certifying his innocence.

" The police would pay them a visit" was the reply!

There is something rather threatning in that statement.

If you are saying that all of those people who have been asked to provide samples would have been interviewed by the police anyway, then there is no problem from my point of view.

 

[bluestreak]

.

OK, but we need to take this further. We have to give the police firm guidelines as to how such investigations should be carried out in an ethical manner in keeping with the highest respect for civil liberties.

Would any of you geniuses care to suggest what these guidelines might say?

well, your arguement is pretty much non-existent, and what there is ignores the good points made by the opponents. but once we get through the froth-mouthed tabloid bullshit we get to a good question.

the answer is quite simply that we cannot - whilst our government is committed to removing privacy and setting up dna and id databases on the sly, while it continues to lie and obfuscate on the issue, and while we have no guaruantee that any samples given will not be retained and destroyed other than the word of a bunch of liars. and there is no doubt whatsoever that you aren't actually going to change your mind, i'll return the question. if you were going to organise it so that people like me who are willing to help the polic with their enquiries whilst not handing their dna details over to whosever mr blair and his friends decide can have it or pay enough for it, how would you do so?

 

[detective-boy]

There is something rather threatning in that statement.

You are SERIOUSLY claiming that a comment (allegedly) made by a relative of the victim and of unknown context represents the official view of the Metropolitan Police Service?

Sheesh!

If you are saying that all of those people who have been asked to provide samples would have been interviewed by the police anyway, then there is no problem from my point of view.

That is precisely what I am saying.