PDA

View Full Version : A person added to the UK DNA database every 45 seconds


kermitthefrayer
08-06-2007, 06:02 AM
http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/dna_db_person_added_to_db_every_45_seconds.htm

Press Esc | August 4, 2007
Angharad Llewelyn

A person is added to the National DNA Database in the United Kingdom every 45 seconds, an opposition MP warned amidst reports that the Home Office has been urged to allow police to take DNA samples for offences such as dropping litter.

In an answer to a Parliamentary Question by Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP, the Government admitted that 722,464 profiles were added to the DNA database during 2006, and that further 154,496 were added this year.

British authorities collect DNA samples of all suspects, including those who are released without charge, and the records are kept permanently.

"The Government's onward march towards a surveillance state has now become a headlong rush," Clegg said. "They seem determined to hoover up the DNA details of as many people as they can, regardless of guilt or innocence. We already have by far the largest DNA database in the world, and these figures make it clear just how fast it's growing."

Advocacy group GeneWatch UK criticised the latest attempts by the Home Office to vastly expand the DNA database claiming that permanent retention of records on innocent people and people convicted of minor offences is unprecedented in British history.

"The Home Office is losing public trust in the police use of DNA", spokesperson Dr Helen Wallace said. "DNA can play an important role in solving crimes, but keeping everybody on the Database permanently is a step too far. The recent massive expansion of the Database has not increased the crime detection rate".

UK has the worlds largest DNA database both in absolute and proportionate terms. More than 4.2 million people, or about seven per cent of all British people are on the database.

kermitthefrayer
08-06-2007, 03:36 PM
TTT

blevunly
08-06-2007, 07:57 PM
What's the problem with that? Seems like it would help find a criminal pretty fast. Sounds alot smarter than only doing it to previous criminals because everytime someone new came around you'd have no DNA matches for them.

livingdeath
08-08-2007, 05:43 AM
What's the problem with that? Seems like it would help find a criminal pretty fast. Sounds alot smarter than only doing it to previous criminals because everytime someone new came around you'd have no DNA matches for them.

for j-walking and littering,no thanks.

Nanoid
08-08-2007, 08:43 AM
The problem is of course that while a DNA test is reasonably certain (a certainty of about 1:100000 for a positive test IIRC ), finding someones DNA at a given location does not tell you when they were there or what they were doing.
Indeed, you can't even conclude that the person was ever actually there, as hair or blood can easily be transported from place to place (deliberately or accidentally).
Despite these shortcommings, the DNA test is portrayed in fiction as being the "end statement" in police work and this sentiment could easily rub off on jurors and other laymen.
The consequence of this would be that people were convicted on less than solid evidence, simply because their DNA was found.

blevunly
08-08-2007, 06:05 PM
The problem is of course that while a DNA test is reasonably certain (a certainty of about 1:100000 for a positive test IIRC ), finding someones DNA at a given location does not tell you when they were there or what they were doing.
Indeed, you can't even conclude that the person was ever actually there, as hair or blood can easily be transported from place to place (deliberately or accidentally).
Despite these shortcommings, the DNA test is portrayed in fiction as being the "end statement" in police work and this sentiment could easily rub off on jurors and other laymen.
The consequence of this would be that people were convicted on less than solid evidence, simply because their DNA was found.

So it's not perfect it's still a step in the right direction.

blevunly
08-08-2007, 06:06 PM
for j-walking and littering,no thanks.

not sure i understand you here why would they need dna for jay walking?

kermitthefrayer
08-08-2007, 06:29 PM
I would like to know as well... but that's what's going on.

Adz
08-08-2007, 07:02 PM
i havent heard anything about this which means it will never be put into place. too radical for us anyway, people would revolt.

kermitthefrayer
08-08-2007, 07:09 PM
Well it's going on across the pond...

blevunly
08-08-2007, 08:34 PM
Again I'll pose my question, what's wrong with this?

kermitthefrayer
08-08-2007, 10:24 PM
Would you willing give a DNA sample for something like jaywalking???

BRN
08-08-2007, 10:26 PM
i hope no one gets murdered in one of the many bathroom stalls ive left my 'dna' in

blevunly
08-08-2007, 10:34 PM
Would you willing give a DNA sample for something like jaywalking???

Sure why not. It's not like they're just gonna go to the crime scene pick up the first DNA they see and say heres our man. They'll still investigate this will give them a list of suspects. Plus with the advances of science we'll be able to tell when the DNA was left and if it matched the time the crime happened. I'm still interested though why are people so scared to give their DNA?