Forum menu
Could the same benefit be gained be spending less money say on crime prevention? After all is it not better that crime is prevented rather than a criminal convited?
Yep, the economic argument is a good one and to my mind far stronger than the idealistic privacy/principles one.
The answer is, I don't know. I'm not a economist or a crime prevention specialist. Clearly there is some kind of cost-benefit analysis required.
Well given that the law enforcement authorities currently have no record of me I see that is giving up quite a bit of privacy.
You really think that law enforcement authorities have NO record of you?? Do you drive, use a credit card, have a TV, pay tax, travel,...
Also as has been stated above, whilst the info on the database may be limited to 20 numbers, the original samples are still kept.
But they are physical samples, NOT on the database and are only accessed as part of a criminal investigation. I agree though that the retention of samples should be looked at - but that is a separate matter from the database itself.
How is that relevant? I can dispose of my car if I see fit. I can change the registration if I want.
Only if you tell the DVLA so they can update their database.
The point is: car number plates are a far greater invasion of privacy than a DNA database. They are visible for everyone to see without consent or specialist equipment, they allow your movements to be tracked and are used to identify you in crimes.
So tell me why every car should have a numebr plate and not just those driven by people with prior convictions?
DNA is thousands of times more easy to plant at a crime scene than a fingerprint, yet because it is a modern technology is held in general to be much more powerful evidence.
Context is everything. A matched DNA sample is just that. It says "a DNA sample from this bloke was found at the crime". Nothing more.
Context is what gives it the weight (think DNA from bodily fluids, skin under fingernails versus DNA on a stray hair follicle).
Moreover if you are saying that DNA evidence is flawed then how can we justify using it at all?
Claiming that it is deeply flawed so it should only be used on people that have committed previous crimes because they are probably guilty anyway is just hypocritical. Either it is good enough for all of us, or it should be dropped completely.
nickc - the ECHR gives the privacy argument enough weight to find against our government.
I'm only saying that it tends to be given undue weight, given the simplicity of planting it.
I'm only saying that it tends to be given undue weight, given the simplicity of planting it.
But how simple is it really to plant a properly damning bit of DNA (i.e. one with a context relating directly to the crime)?
And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?
If so then does that suggest that we shouldn't ever use DNA?
I think this is about choice. You can choose not to have a car can't you, you could walk, cycle, use trains, buses and only use cash or even barter to trade goods and services (OK this is extreme but you could). But you cannot choose to not have DNA.
I hardly ever drive and like to get around by bike /walk..
Only if you tell the DVLA so they can update their database.
Well yes but that is something that you would seek to deny to everyone on the DNA database.
You really think that law enforcement authorities have NO record of you?? Do you drive, use a credit card, have a TV, pay tax, travel,...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the law enforcement authorities (i.e. the police) do not have routine access to this information, well apart from the driving bit, and would need a court order to gain access to it. This would require some sort of evidence for me having committed a crime, something not required by the database. Actually the Police will have me on record as I have given witness statements in the past.
...they allow your movements to be tracked and are used to identify you in crimes.
No they do not, they allow my car to be tracked. I am not my car, nor is it my car part of me. I can move around without using my car, I cannot move around without my DNA. I am also free to choose whether or not I have a car, not so with DNA. Your car analogy is flawed.
And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?
You cannot be done by DNA alone anyway, so that as a method to shoot down planting as an objection doesn't hold water and actually reveals the problem with DNA, even you as a pro DNA man think that there are times when DNA alone should convict you. WRONG, BAD, GO TO YOUR ROOM NAUGHTY BOY.
And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?
Can't convict on DNA evidence alone, there has to be something else in addition.
EDIT - Too slow
Correct me if I'm wrong but the law enforcement authorities (i.e. the police) do not have routine access to this information, well apart from the driving bit, and would need a court order to gain access to it. This would require some sort of evidence for me having committed a crime
[url= http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/regulation-investigatory-powers/ ]If your limit of "law enforcement authorities" stops at the police[/url] then yes I suppose they probably do need some kind of permission for most of that stuff (not all though: banks are obliged to inform the police about suspicious financial transactions for example).
But don't rely on you needing to commit a crime. Don't forget under the PACE laws you could be stopped and searched (without arrest) for looking "suspicious".
even you as a pro DNA man think that there are times when DNA alone should convict you. WRONG
You are misreading my argument (or I am misstating it).
My implied answer to my own question [i]"And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?"[/i] is No. DNA evidence alone should never carry a conviction. Obviously.
You are misreading my argument (or I am misstating it).
Either is possible, I prefer the latter... 😀