Strangeways
New Member
So go down the police station and give them a dna donation.Giles said:
Judge wants *everyone* in the UK on DNA database
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
I have no statistics, but my experience of bodies / persons found over twenty years - relatively few unidentified after initial enquiries (24 hours). Hardly any unidentified after first circulation / publicity (7 days). Very, very few (I'd guess something like 250 per year, if that, nationally) unidentifed after 3 months of enquiries. As for the "expense" of trying to identify them, it's relatively low - publicity and internal police circulation / cross-checking of records really, with a bit of dental record checking when a possible identification comes to light - as there's not usually a whole lot you can do, especially if there are no suspicious circumstances.sleaterkinney said:
I think that the law seven years ago was that a sample should have been destroyed if you were acquitted. The change was not made retrospective so far as I know.Boris Sprinkler said:
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I was cautioned. And photos were taken of me and my tattoos. For criminal damage ffs.
Giles said:
Because once someone has had a DNA sample taken then they tend to get picked up in future investigative trawls through possible suspects. It's hard to say how widespread this is, but anecdotally it certainly does take place - sometimes involving people who were completely unconnected to any criminal activity in the first place.
OK, then I misunderstood your post. The balance of privacy against public good is why I favour going back to the "on conviction only" retention (there is a case to be made for those charged to be retained regardless of outcome on the basis that at least a prima facie case existed, but that should be subject to a right of appeal to a Court, settled on the balance of probabilities perhaps).sleaterkinney said:
A caution is a conviction, so the samples would be kept.Boris Sprinkler said:
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Strangeways said:
maybe that's the excuse the wanking copper should have used...
editor
hiraethified
Yup. A national DNA database won't be abused at all. No sir.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457046&in_page_id=1770
From the Daily Mail, of all people!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=457046&in_page_id=1770
Er ... no they don't.Fruitloop said:
There is no way of doing that. DNA profiles only ever come into use if a DNA sample of the suspect(s) for the new offence is available. In that case the profile is compared against those on file and a match is sought. As with fingerprints there are sometimes profiles that are very similar but it is extremely unusual for the lab to send back a list of possible suspects - I have only ever known it in cases where for some technical reason (degradation of sample, mixing of DNA) a "clean" and complete profile cannot be obtained.
If no DNA profile is obtained from the scene there is abslutely no way at all that the database can be used to suggest the "usual suspects".
Please think crtically about scaremongering like this.There is also a new technique which seeks to track back similarities in profiles between siblings so that if a profile is obtained which has no exact match there is some scope for identifying other profiles on the system which may be brothers or sisters ... but in that case the investigating officer knows that the person identified is NOT the suspect but a starting point for enquiries to possibly identify the suspect.
BlackSpecs
The DogFather
Giles said:
If most forensic databases only possess an identifying value, found in the non-codifying parts of DNA, some others also store physical samples (UK, Austria). The custody of these physical samples is a crucial issue for human rights' groups, as there are great fears that the genetic information could be used for purposes that are completely unrelated to identification. It is critical to assure that the databases will not be used by employers, insurance companies, the biomedical industry or others, without the individual's informed consent. There are also concerns about government use of the database outside of the realm of law and order. Civil liberties groups worldwide have been warning to the risk that governments in years to come might want to access the database as an instrument of social policy. The possible implications of the database being (mis)used for non-forensic purposes, conjures up images of a "genetic surveillance" worthy of an Orwellian nightmare.
Who are you addressing?editor said:
detective-boy said:Er ... no they don't.
There is no way of doing that. DNA profiles only ever come into use if a DNA sample of the suspect(s) for the new offence is available. In that case the profile is compared against those on file and a match is sought. As with fingerprints there are sometimes profiles that are very similar but it is extremely unusual for the lab to send back a list of possible suspects - I have only ever known it in cases where for some technical reason (degradation of sample, mixing of DNA) a "clean" and complete profile cannot be obtained.
If no DNA profile is obtained from the scene there is abslutely no way at all that the database can be used to suggest the "usual suspects".
There is also a new technique which seeks to track back similarities in profiles between siblings so that if a profile is obtained which has no exact match there is some scope for identifying other profiles on the system which may be brothers or sisters ... but in that case the investigating officer knows that the person identified is NOT the suspect but a starting point for enquiries to possibly identify the suspect.
You've misunderstood me. In the interviews I saw (will try and look them up, but it was a while ago so I may not succeed) people had been trawled through purely for having a DNA sample on file, the lab was never involved as far as I'm aware.
I really think you view a whole range of issues through rose-tinted spectacles, mostly because you seem to be operating under the misconception that how things are supposed to work represents what actually happens in practice.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I wonder how long it would take the Government to use a universal DNA database to identify the father of a child even when not stated on the birth certificate...?
I've nothing against a DNA database if it's useage was tightly enforced/limited. However that's not how things work, ever.
I've nothing against a DNA database if it's useage was tightly enforced/limited. However that's not how things work, ever.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Hold it, to have thier DNA on file they'll have been charged with a crime. So how do you know it's the DNA database rather than the arresting officer's memory/notepad that's relevant?Fruitloop said:
Giles said:
I think the disportionate numbers of ethnic minorites on the current DNA database is a big argument for everyone to be on a national DNA database.
Whilst I personally am in favour or a national DNA database of everyone in the country and fingerprints as well. I don't see this being currently possible due to the track record of government and large IT systems.
Geoff Collier
Active Member
editor said:
I'm sure Stephen Sedley is from a leftist background, possibly even having been in the CPGB. I know that doesn't debar anybody from New Labour politics but I was slightly surprised.
Can anyone confirm this?
stdPikachu
Plughole in bathtub curve
Well, so far the only advantages that seem to have been mentioned for a national DNA database are:
a) It'll make it cheaper to identify dead bodies (if you ignore the colossal set-up costs)
b) It'll mean the already-unfairly-treated-ethnic-minorities will morph into an unfairly-treated-everyone
The potential for abuse in this system is so colossally vast that the mere thought of it makes me want to get the fuck out of this country.
a) It'll make it cheaper to identify dead bodies (if you ignore the colossal set-up costs)
b) It'll mean the already-unfairly-treated-ethnic-minorities will morph into an unfairly-treated-everyone
The potential for abuse in this system is so colossally vast that the mere thought of it makes me want to get the fuck out of this country.
Don't forget, if you're standing in a pub minding your own business and some nutcase starts on you, the cops are called etc, it's not unusual for them to arrest everybody and sort it out at the station. There are plenty of ways to get swept up without any suggestion of criminal activity on your part.
stdPikachu
Plughole in bathtub curve
Fruitloop said:
I imagine if this plan goes ahead, DNA sampling kits will become as common as breathalysers...
Giles said:
Last I heard, DNA samples could prove no such thing. At best, a DNA sample confirms that a) yes, you did have sex with this person and b) one of your hairs was found at the murder scene. These are worlds apart from actually proving that someone did XYZ, that's fot the jury to decide.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Geoff Collier said:
Well there was *a* Stephen Sedley QC in the CPG, but having joined the party in 1958 i doubt it's the same one - judging from the picture anyway.
what a bunch of bullshit man. this controversy has been going on since DNA testing became viable. I knew it would come to this eventually. 
You can have a DNA sample taken for all sorts of reasons, like being involved in a pub-fight as I already explained in my post above. In the past the cops have used having a DNA record per se as an indication that someone is a potential suspect if they have some other connection to a particular crime (like just living in that area), and people who have never been convicted (or even accused) of any crime, but who have had their DNA taken for random reasons have then found themselves repeatedly pestered whenever there is some kind of incident in their neighbourhood.
untethered
For industry & decency
This is just a broadside from an "independent" - a judge - but expect to see this be used as ammunition by various interest groups that want to increase state surveillance of the whole population.
The only effective counter is to run active campaigns to turn the tide the other way. First, for DNA to be retained only when there is a conviction. Then, to limit it to serious offences. This needs to be combined with a constitutional guarantee of how this information can be used that's not subject to easy tinkering by the government of the day, or worse, individual police forces' policies.
The only effective counter is to run active campaigns to turn the tide the other way. First, for DNA to be retained only when there is a conviction. Then, to limit it to serious offences. This needs to be combined with a constitutional guarantee of how this information can be used that's not subject to easy tinkering by the government of the day, or worse, individual police forces' policies.
No. I am operating in the knowledge of how things actually work, having been a senior investigating officer for five fucking years.Fruitloop said:
The fact that someone has a DNA sample on file is absolutely fucking meaningless to an investigating officer. ALL it means is that someone has been arrested for a recordable offence of some sort. It is of no investigative value whatsoever.
You are talking bollocks. Go and find your "interviews" and they will either turn out to be talking about something else (like, perhaps, a conviction for a particular type of offence) which does have some investigative value or I will tear them to pieces as well.
Similar threads
