bedwards1966 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 If your mother/wife/daughter was raped late at night with no CCTV or witnesses, the offender had no previous, was not from the area and there was nothing else to go on the DNA would tell the police who to look for straight away. I remember one where a bloke got nicked for stealing a kit kat. Some may say that it was over the top to arrest someone for this, especially as they had no previous. His DNA was taken and he was found to be the offender for a rape a few years previous. It would help catch offenders and prevent crime and I would be for that. Yes it would give the police an idea where to look, it certainly does have its uses - I'm not disputing that. However, there has to be a line drawn between the rights of the public and solving crime, and taking the DNA of every person is, in my opinion, a long way over the line. Is taking the DNA of every person enough? Yet more crimes could be solved by having trackers fitted to everybody. Where do you think the line should be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 If your mother/wife/daughter was raped late at night with no CCTV or witnesses, the offender had no previous, was not from the area and there was nothing else to go on the DNA would tell the police who to look for straight away. I remember one where a bloke got nicked for stealing a kit kat. Some may say that it was over the top to arrest someone for this, especially as they had no previous. His DNA was taken and he was found to be the offender for a rape a few years previous. It would help catch offenders and prevent crime and I would be for that. Dirty Harry,i am curious,have you given a DNA sample voluntarily? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 I'd quite like to see explosive collars fitted to prisoners on release. Should they reoffend I just put down my doughnut and press the button marked detonate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 I'd quite like to see explosive collars fitted to prisoners on release. Should they reoffend I just put down my doughnut and press the button marked detonate. Could get a bit messy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Yes it would give the police an idea where to look, it certainly does have its uses - I'm not disputing that. However, there has to be a line drawn between the rights of the public and solving crime, and taking the DNA of every person is, in my opinion, a long way over the line. Is taking the DNA of every person enough? Yet more crimes could be solved by having trackers fitted to everybody. Where do you think the line should be? Just DNA and fingerprints. How do you think having a sample on record would effect day to day life of your average person and why do you think it's a step too far? Dirty Harry,i am curious,have you given a DNA sample voluntarily? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Dirty Harry,i am curious,have you given a DNA sample voluntarily? Yes. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Most coppers , certainly on my force give DNA samples and fingerprints on joining to enable them to be eliminated at crime scenes if found. ( I have also personally given samples of my DNA to numerous women over the years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 I've also given blood samples for testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Most coppers , certainly on my force give DNA samples and fingerprints on joining to enable them to be eliminated at crime scenes if found. ( I have also personally given samples of my DNA to numerous women over the years) but was it against their human rights andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 I'd quite like to see explosive collars fitted to prisoners on release. Should they reoffend I just put down my doughnut and press the button marked detonate. Might be a problem if the person with the button holds a grudge or makes a mistake... Just DNA and fingerprints. How do you think having a sample on record would effect day to day life of your average person and why do you think it's a step too far? I feel that forcing everybody onto a database in this way is imposing on their human rights. While it should not have any effect on someones life - unless the data is misused - it is cataloging people, most of whom are perfectly law abiding, in case they are a criminal. I think it's better to give people freedom instead of treating them like a potential criminal, then if someone is found guilty of a crime then it's reasonable to take their DNA if they're shown to be a criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welsh1 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Most coppers , certainly on my force give DNA samples and fingerprints on joining to enable them to be eliminated at crime scenes if found. That's why i asked,as i would have thought it would be mandatory to supply DNA and fingerprints on joining,but was surprised to find it was voluntary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 While it should not have any effect on someones life - unless the data is misused - it is cataloging people, most of whom are perfectly law abiding, in case they are a criminal. So it would have no effect on their life other than help to keep them safe, prevent and detect crime and lock up bad people. I don't think it's used to catalogue people, its used to screen DNA samples found at crime scenes against samples held on file. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) So it would have no effect on their life other than help to keep them safe, prevent and detect crime and lock up bad people. I don't think it's used to catalogue people, its used to screen DNA samples found at crime scenes against samples held on file. Harry It's cataloging every person/their details ready to catch them if their DNA is found at/near a crime scene. It's treating everybody as a potential criminal in order to catch the tiny percentage who actually are criminals. Of course this is all a matter of balancing the rights of the public against catching crime, we each hold different views on where this line should be drawn - it's all a matter of opinion. Edited December 24, 2012 by bedwards1966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 [quote]It's cataloging every person/their details ready to catch them if their DNA is found at/near a crime scene. It's treating everybody as a potential criminal in order to catch the tiny percentage who actually are criminals.[/quote] That is a fair argument in favour of DNA sampling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 That is a fair argument in favour of DNA sampling. Treating every single person as a potential criminal to catch the minute percentage who actually are? I'm not sure what percentage of the population are criminals, but it seems that it's very low. It means a lot of people on record to catch very few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin128 Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 This evening as I left the airport car park at the barriers were 3 policeman who pulled me aside for no apparent reason. I was asked to give a sample of my breath which came back zero. I always thought they had to give a reason or suspect someone of drinking driving for wanting to breathalyse an individual? Or is random breath testing now the norm? No problem at all so long as they are professional about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted December 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 What is no problem at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWD Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) If the police were polite,professional and efficient about it...cant see a problem....unless people think having a bleary eye tanked up selfish a hole driving on the same road as say you and your family is acceptable. Its a prolific crime and one that is better detected before damage is caused....or do folk thing reactive policing after the event is only acceptable. Its a bit like taking a legally held gun away from an proven irresponsible nutcase ...when should they do it...before or after he has shot someone Edited December 24, 2012 by PWD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Missed Again Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 Random Breathalyzer Testing? They do what they want, when they want, how they want. Don't forget they are above the Law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerettaSV10 Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 Random Breathalyzer Testing? They do what they want, when they want, how they want. Don't forget they are above the Law +1 They have lost the respect they used to have in them, and whats worse its spoilt by the do as I say and not do as I do brigade in the force, so theres also no trust in them. Been on the receiving end of this a few times, I went to put in a complain about one officer as he almost crashed into us, he did not stop at a T junc (no blues and twos on, so just normal duty) and first thing they threatened was if you put the complaint in they will sieze our car and make sure they do us in return. :( Report a crime (except motoring offences) in 48 hrs you may get a call saying they were too busy to attend, mention a car has hit a wall or another motoring offence like breaking into a car they are there like a shot after the offender. I got rammed by a car on the way home from the pub one night, called the police as got the other persons reg, and again were out in minutes. Breatherlised me and they were shocked there was no sign of alcahol ( I don't drink), what really brassed me off they did not breathalise the other driver, who lived just down the road. Call me suspicious but the area we were in was where a lot of police lived. Thankfully there are some decent police out there who do go through and do their job 110% of the time, and it shows in their attitude and how they treat you, and do have the respect for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 (edited) Random Breathalyzer Testing? They do what they want, when they want, how they want. Don't forget they are above the Law Is the correct answer. As for taking DNA and fingerprinting from everyone,I believe thats more about making it easier for plod rather than actually reducing crime, plod knows who the bad lads are,and plod does sometimes actually get off his harris and deal with it, and then the naughty boys get a slap on the wrist and are told go away and dont do it again. Also I'm sure that mass testing is caricaturisation of everyone as a potential criminal, and I thought as in the case of those with beards who look like they may be terrorists! we are not allowed to assume, as it is profiling? a big no no, so again how do we justify mass testing and random pulls? KW Edited December 25, 2012 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 but was it against their human rights andrew Against their Pudenda more like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 after the complete **** who swerved in front of me to get off the pavement he was driving on, to pass both lanes of traffic, then drive on the pavement a bit, to then pull infront of me needs a beating. all that in aquaplaning conditions too. GRRRRR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyxologos Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 A breathalising test lasts a few seconds. It can, nevertheless, prevent those who do not give a damn for human life from continuing their murderus spree. Driving whilst drunk is a crime as simle as. If people are not willing to respect human life, then everything should be done to catch them before they do some serious damage. Long story made very short follows: Nineteen years ago, whilst driving with three friends to a basketball game a drunk driver pushed us in the way of an 18 wheeler. My three friends died on the spot. I broke my spine, my arm, leg, neck. I was in a coma for three months, paralyzed for a year. I was told I would never walk. I did.The driver of the 18 wheeler never got over the fact he killed three people, although it was not his fault. The drunk driver was driving whilst disqualified, after he put another two people in a wheelchair and another one six feet under the surface of the earth. After this second murderus spree (I dare anyone here to call it anything else) he was jailed for 5 years. When he got out, in less than a year he was dead, having kiled another person in an RTA. NO TOLERANCE TO DRINK DRIVING. YOU WANT TO DIE, JUMP OFF A BRIDGE IN A RIVER. I WANT TO LIVE... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted December 25, 2012 Report Share Posted December 25, 2012 I don't think anyone can argue with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.