Stu S Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Harry, I am also a parent, but I have worked with individuals in secure hospitals that have abused children and/or were abused as children over the years, so I have seen the effects of this kind of abuse with my own eyes. As a consequence of seeing this, I have become more vigilant than most other parents (not saying that other parents aren't vigilant, but when you have seen something, or the effects of something, you become more aware of it, if that makes sense?) would be, and in order for anyone to break into my house and abuse my son, they would have to get past double glazed windows, triple locking doors, a labrador, an alarm system, the missus, and me. Whilst I appreciate that this is only one scenario that you gave as an example, my point is more on prevention, rather than cure. If we as a society spent more of our time putting more emphasis on preventing crimes in the first place, would there be any possible need for a DNA database? The biggest cause of crime in the UK is poverty, either directly or indirectly, which is either self inflicted (drug abuse, gambling, alcoholism etc) or inflicted upon you (redundancy, illness etc.). If our so called Robin Hood government actually dealt with this as they proposed to do when they first came to power and re-designed the benefits system to meet the needs of those that are in difficulty instead of giving themselves pay rises and fourth homes, there might actually be a decrease in crime. I will admit that this is mere supposition on my part, but you have to start somewhere. In any case, we seem to have gone off topic a little here ol' bean, so I will revert back to the main issue directly. :blink: Do I want a DNA database? Deffinatley Not. Would I be happy putting my own or my family members' DNA on it if it did exist? No way. Do i trust governments either current, future, or for that fact 'official' bodies such as the police to handle this kind of sensitive information properly? No. I would rather trust that kind of information to the main dealer for my car. At least all they will send me is junk mail. Would I trust a conviction that was based solely on DNA evidence when DNA is still not 100% accurate? No. How would I feel if the DNA database was implemented? Sad that things had come to it, and ****** that they were trying to take liberties with my Human Rights. Thereendeth my tuppence towards the pot! :wacko: Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 What I find scary, is your second question, "have there ever been any mistakes? ". If you are convicted on DNA evidence alone, how can you defend yourself? An "expert" says it is your DNA on the weapon, your defence is....? If your DNA was found on a murder weapon, inside a little girl, in an old persons home who has been burgled then yes if you cant explain it you deserve to go to prison. Harry In fairness Harry, the examples you quote of child molestation and old people being burgled are rather emotive. Nobody would want people guilty of these crimes (and any others) going free. The blind assumption that DNA evidence is infallible is dangerous. The tests are carried out by humans, checked by humans and presented by humans. When you can convince me that humans don't make mistake, I will believe. Weren't there some cases recently that were appealed, or thrown out, because the DNA evidence was suspect ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njc110381 Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I think it would be a good idea. For a start they have mine anyway so it wouldn't change anything :wacko: I think DNA can be wrong, and you do get exact copies if you search enough people. That said, if there was ever a major crime you could haul the lot in and work on them until the culprit was found. I'm with Harry on this one, it would do a lot more good than harm. I know it's another invasion of your rights, but it's these rights that often stop the police from doing what they should be allowed to do! Once you've broken the law, you should lose your rights until you've been dealt with. I remember the mouthfull I had read out to me when I was arrested. What I'd done, that I didn't have to tell them about it, that anything I did say could be used against me, blah blah etc etc. What a load of ****. A swift baton to the chops and in the van would have done the same job in half the time. I was in the wrong so was hardly in a position to complain about it. If the law could get its act together and stop protecting the criminal all the trouble we're seeing now would be gone :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 You seem to have missed my point, of both Cranfields question and my comment. The whole point was how do I offer a defence against DNA evidence if I am innocent. And how do I prove that there was a mistake? Unless you have an identical twin, a very good alibi or can proove a genuine reason to have your DNA somewhere where it should not be then you have no defence. As you presume that everyone is guilty untill proved innocent, I can only assume that you are in the police force. You assume right albeit a little slowly, and yes I believe that 99% of the people I arrest are guilty. If I did not I would not arrest them. What happens at court is another matter completly. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 According to Google (so it must be right) the chances of two people (not twing) having the same DNA is......... Wait for it..... 5 followed by 19300 zero's. I can live with those odds. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I am very wary of the whole thing, the reasons being that you just dont know what a future government could do with the information, and I dont trust them with the information in the first place. Having said this though I cant complain too much, when I was young free and single I cant say I was too fussy about where my DNA ended up, especially after a skinfull and a kebab.. :wacko: ZB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu S Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Sorry, just one more point to add here, then I'll leave well alone. In theis country, human rights dictate that all suspects in a crime or criminal activity are classed as Innocent until Proven Guilty. And the majority of the supporters of this DNA database (not just on here I must add) seem to have turned that into you are Guilty until proven Innocent. Sorry to be so blunt here, but B0**OCKS. If you can't expect to be tried fairly, or indeed arrested fairly under the premis that you are innocent until proven guilty, then why don't we just arrest everyone, charge them all with committing crimes, get everyone on the database, and send everyone to prison? That seems to me to be how it will end up, albeit a little exagerated, if we don't stop thinking like americans or 'big brother'. As for the police force, I have personally never had a dealing with a police officer (other than the FAO that I met regarding my certification) that I can say I went away happy afterwards. It really doesn't suprise me that the force has become negative in their approach to the law and people when you look at todays society, but I have to say that if you want to be treated well, treat others well too (that goes for all people, not just police officers), and try to work together to look at preventitave measures rather than witch hunts or scapegoating! Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Stu, If everyone should be treated as if they are innocent until convicted be a court why does the law of this land allow the police and courts to remand people into custody prior to their conviction. The legal system is not as straight forward as it appears you think it is. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookie Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Harry, That's quite strange really as it really should be. I thought that something like the law would apply to everyone in the country in exactly the same way, irrespective of who they were, their upbringing or their job. Pete Doherty proved me worng. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu S Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 :wacko: :blink: Couldn't have put it better myself! Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Harry, That's quite strange really as it really should be. I thought that something like the law would apply to everyone in the country in exactly the same way, irrespective of who they were, their upbringing or their job. Pete Doherty proved me worng. Not quite sure how that relates to my post? I never said that the law is applied differently to different people. Stu, Maybe you could clarify exactly what you agree with. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu S Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I agree that the legal system in this country should be straight forward. It has been overly complicated for years now, and has no need to be really. And also that one rule for one (criminal) is good for another (criminal), but ONLY if they are guilty. Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 DNA is all about solving crimes "after the event". CCTV is about recording crimes "as they are committed". What happened to prevention and erm policing? Proper policing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadShotHoncho Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) It is a good idea but the database of criminals should still be available to the met, but only CSI, Murder Squad, Armed Police, MI6, MI5 and people high up should be allowed the big one. That way it can't be used against innocent people who've dropped a fag or something or by parking wardens. Edited March 20, 2008 by HeadShotHoncho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piebob Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 You seem to have missed my point, of both Cranfields question and my comment. The whole point was how do I offer a defence against DNA evidence if I am innocent. And how do I prove that there was a mistake? Unless you have an identical twin, a very good alibi or can proove a genuine reason to have your DNA somewhere where it should not be then you have no defence. Harry And that's acceptable? Are you saying that's it's OK to send down an innocent man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Depends on who fitted them up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 I watched the file Hitman yesterday, They ahve the right idea. Tattoo everyone with a unique barcode on the back of their heads. Then when some scumbag goes to rob Tesco's all the cashier needs to do is scan them as they run away. Job done. If MI5 is reading this, for 50K a year I'll come and work for you. Mind you if they have been reading the other thread then I've got no chance. (They're coming to take me away Ha Ha to the funny farm Hee Hee) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunk Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 (edited) On the face of it, it looks like a good idea. Solve a lot of crimes past present and future, and i have been involved in the forcefull harvesting of DNA myself which no doubt has done some good. However; Anyone seen the film Gattaca? The government doesnt have a good track record of protecting private personal information. They also privatise government departments. Imagine, you want life insurance, a new job maybe? "Sorry, you dont fit our criteria as it has been shown that you have a genetic predisposition to cancer/heart desease/other health..etc" Information sold or otherwise passed on by a private company entrusted with your personal records. In short you have been put in a risk group dictated by your genetic make up. You no longer have the freedoms of those with a superior set of genes. The start of genetic cleansing perhaps? Edited March 20, 2008 by chunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Chunk, spot on mate. With any database comes trends, correlations and predictions. You could end up screwed from the off if your DNA doesn't come up to muster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob300w Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Chunk, spot on mate. With any database comes trends, correlations and predictions. You could end up screwed from the off if your DNA doesn't come up to muster. As we have a wooden-top on here saying that once you are arrested, you are guilty whatever your defence, what does DNA matter anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 As we have a wooden-top on here saying that once you are arrested, you are guilty whatever your defence, what does DNA matter anyway? Drop the name calling and read what is written carefully. Nobody has posted that you are guilty whatever your defence. What was stated is that the police must consider you guilty if they arrest you, that makes sense to me. Lets keep the debate polite and reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Thanks Cranfield. As most people can only see things from a paraniod point of view and are starting to misinterpret what I have posted I shall bow out of this thread. Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu S Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 Mr Bob300w - A very valid point there sir, but lets not resort to attacking other members, as everyone is entitled to their opinion! Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted March 20, 2008 Report Share Posted March 20, 2008 The DVLC hold personal information as stated earlier. They are quite happy to sell that information to debt collection companys, bailiffs, local authorities etc.Here's a little scenario for you. You're walking through your local town having a fag. You drop your fag butt on the street. Suddenly some council busybody stops you and fines you £75 for littering (happened to my mates wife last week). How is said council going to prove that fag butt belongs to you? At the moment if there's no cctv evidence they can't,BUT give them access to a DNA database and HEY PRESTO!!! No, sorry, i just don't trust the powers to be not to abuse their position. I think your scenario is a bit far fetched but in principle yes it could happen. This would result in the offender being prossecuted for an offence. OMG what is the world comming to. Harry Hardly far fetched and would almost certainly soon be the case should a DNA database be set up. As for someone being prosecuted for such an offence, i'm sure police officers could be doing far more useful tasks than spending their time processing members of the public for such a minor infringement of the law. Is it any wonder this country's in the state it's in? Recently discs containing personal information of thousands of serving miltary personel have been stolen from a car belonging to someone working for the M.O.D. Discs have disappeared containing thousands of peoples personal tax details recently. Criminals nowadays are more than capable of forging/copying even the most secure documents etc. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before someone worked out a way of using a DNA sample. Once done it would simply be a case of leaving a 'sample' at the scene of a crime and some poor ****** cops for something he didn't do!! 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.