[Closed] The DNA database

Out of interest TJ, would you limit the time convicted criminals spent on the database? And would it apply to any criminal conviction?

Personally if sacrificing my privacy stops one rapist raping again I'll make that trade...I'd struggle to sleep at night thinking that rapists and murderers were running free because the public (me included) refused to hand over a little info

This is a silly argument. You might as well argue that people who use curtains are responsible for domestic abuse because otherwise you'd be able to see domestic violence from the street - or that people who use cash instead of credit cards are letting drug dealers walk free because if cash transactions were banned it would be easier to identify drug transactions - or that people whose cars don't have interlock breathalysers fitted are protecting drink drivers because if they were compulsory drink drivers wouldn't be able to drive pissed.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it more eloquently than I could,

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

And as for:

If you were walking down the road and the police said "excuse me, we need to eliminate you from our equiries, can we take a voluntary test of your dna against the murderers" would you say yes? If you'd say yes then you've little to be worried about. If you'd say no then I don't see why, what are you giving them that could be used against you and how does someone knowing your dna sequence infringe your privacy?

Don't you believe in the right to silence? There is, and should be, no obligation to help the police do their work.

I believe in being helpful.

You might as well argue that people who use curtains are responsible for domestic abuse because otherwise you'd be able to see domestic violence from the street

What an utterly pointless comparison.

GrahamS - Member

Out of interest TJ, would you limit the time convicted criminals spent on the database? And would it apply to any criminal conviction?

'tis an interesting point

I am not sure of the details but I believe in Scotland there are limits - depending on age at time of offence and also of severity of offense.

I think more minor crimes to be spent seems reasonable, more major ones I am not sure.

What an utterly pointless comparison.

This is a silly argument. You might as well argue that people who use curtains are responsible for domestic abuse because otherwise you'd be able to see domestic violence from the street

Don't you believe in the right to silence? There is, and should be, no obligation to help the police do their work.

Why wouldn't I want to help them, unless I'd done something wrong? I've been stopped by the police several times, each time I've done no wrong and I'm happy for them to search my car, turn it inside out, I'll let them search me in person - i don't care, provided it serves a purpose and helps someone somewhere. One time I was found guilty of a minor infraction, I paid my fine and never did it again. Served its purpose, I'm still perfectly happy to help the police in any way I can.

Constantly assuming the police are bent and the government would mis-handle info isn't a sane way to approach a society.

coffeeking

How about this. You have had your DNA taken to eliminate you from an inquiry. There is another crime. Your DNA is found at the scene from a totally innocent source and no other DNA is found. You become the prime suspect. You have no alibi.

Not a position I would want to be in. Effectively then you have to prove your innocence.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories but i do subscribe to the cockup theories

Read up on the Shirley McKay case ( that was fingerprints) but the principle is the same.

Constantly assuming the police are bent and the government would mis-handle info isn't a sane way to approach a society.

I agree, but then neither is constantly assuming every man in the street is guilty and therefore must have his DNA taken.

TJ: as you yourself said earlier, you cannot be convicted on DNA evidence.

In the situtuation you describe the context of the DNA is absolutely vital. If coffeeking's DNA was found on an article directly relating to the crime (e.g. on a weapon involved) then yes that would probably make him a suspect or at least someone police might want to talk to.

If it was on a bit of chewing gum, in a bin, somewhere fairly close to the scene, then they wouldn't talk to him unless they had something else.

But aside from that: how is this situation different from the police taking a sample from everyone nearby, including coffeeking, and then ending up in exactly the same situation?

I agree, but then neither is constantly assuming every man in the street is guilty and therefore must have his DNA taken.

Good job the Government doesn't believe that either.

agree, but then neither is constantly assuming every man in the street is guilty and therefore must have his DNA taken.

So is having a reg plate on your car and your details in the DVLA database assuming that you are guilty of some motoring offence?

No a car is a choice you choose to operate a fechin killing polluting machine so lets register them, no problem. Being alive is not a choice (well ...) you have a right to privacy.

coffeeking

How about this. You have had your DNA taken to eliminate you from an inquiry. There is another crime. Your DNA is found at the scene from a totally innocent source and no other DNA is found. You become the prime suspect. You have no alibi.

There would have to be supporting evidence if there was ANY chance that I was accidentally caught up in it, the same as now, or it wouldn't stand and there would be reasonable doubt over the case.

Isn't shirley mckay a scottish crime writer?

And if all there was evident was your DNA then it is not enough to secure a conviction.

I still don't like it though as a jury thinks that DNA is the be all and end all so if there was other circumstantial evidence you could be fitted up..

Being alive is not a choice (well ...) you have a right to privacy.

And no one has yet answered what particular "privacy" they would be giving up if placed on the DNA database?

Incidentally, why does a fingerprint database not cause such passionate debate?

I still don't like it though as a jury thinks that DNA is the be all and end
all so if there was other circumstantial evidence you could be fitted
up..

That is an issue of jury education and is a matter for the defence counsel. It is a problem with or without the database, as either way DNA evidence will still be used.

If anything having a database wity other possible matches may weaken the strength of the DNA evidence.

I still don't like it though as a jury thinks that DNA is the be all and end all so if there was other circumstantial evidence you could be fitted up..

True, but you'd be in a strange situation to not be able to confirm your whereabouts (or being in the same area but being innocent), have a quantity of circumstantial evidence against you, have DNA evidence against you and motive for the action, yet still be innocent. The likelyhood has to be small. Versus the benefit of having knowledge of the key leads instantly in a lot of cases, plus the deterrant effect of knowing that just because you have never killed before you're still going to be matched DNA-wise if it's found. Don't get me wrong, I do see the concern, I just think the probability is tiny and most people can explain and prove where they are most of the time if needed.

may weaken the strength of the DNA evidence.

Nah, I don't think so - if you can find the 3 other matches in the country and they have reasonable alibis I think thats fairly good indication of possible guilt and removes the "well it IS possibel someone else was there that we don't know of" argument.

http://www.shirleymckie.com/

While this is about fingerprinting it shows quite clearly how having your data on a database no matter how innocently can lead you into a great deal of trouble and stress - and while DNA may be more reliable than fingerprints it is not infallible.

Just a big cock up and then a cover up.

Have a read Its quite scary.

Yep, but that's because it was taken as the sole evidence. And that's why this is no longer the case? Christ, if you're that suspicious you could realise that bent cops could easily plant any type of evidence they liked about you at the scene and its up to you to prove you were not there, the lack of database doesn't stop that.

Yeah, but currently DNA evidence is presented as "Tell me Professor, what is the chance of this DNA matching someone else?", "It's 67,462 to 1"

Which is over simplifying and making the evidence sound bulletproof.

If they said "Well this sample wasn't very good. We only had enough to get a partial match, which got over a thousand hits in the database" then it looks a lot more fallible (even though it is basically the same figure).

See your point, but anyone with half a brain would see through the statistics. You'd hope. No, having sat on a jury and watched those around me I certainly can see that point now.

True, but you'd be in a strange situation to not be able to confirm your whereabouts (or being in the same area but being innocent), have a quantity of circumstantial evidence against you, have DNA evidence against you and motive for the action, yet still be innocent. The likelyhood has to be small.

This is exactly the problem, it might be strange but if its all circumstantial there are plenty of ways you could be innocent, in TJ speak, this is twaddle. There is some argument that the use of DNA makes it easier to fit people up.

I think you'll find the probability is very very small and as such it should be accepted that having to prove your innocence in a 1 in a million case involving this type of situation is a minor price to pay for significantly increasing public safety and conviction rates. You still forget that it's not an open and shut case just because your DNA was there, there are thousands of cases where DNA evidence is doubted and thrown out, I've been involved in one. The defendant (with prior) claimed he'd been sneaking around the area in question at night (secure area) but had not broken into the building in question, despite his DNA being found inside the building on a cig end. He claimed it was carried in by the real theif's shoes. As no proof could be given that he was actually inside the building, it was accepted as possible he was not there in person and he was released. Yet you think an innocent, clean-recorded person is going to get fitted up?

There is some argument that the
use of DNA makes it easier to fit people up.

Even if that were true, that would be the use of DNA evidence that caused the issue and not the presence of a DNA Database.

i.e. you could just as easily be "fitted up" by DNA evidence planting now without a universal database. So this isn't an argument against the DNA database.

What happened to Shirley Mackie is an example of why the database is dangerous

Coffeeking - you always need two pieces of evidence in Scotland - she was arrested and all the rest to try to rattle her into giving up another piece of evidence - the prosecutors were convinced of her guilt and were fishing for the second piece.

If your DNA is found on a scene and match or an incorrect match made than you could easily end up in the same position.

Coffeeking - you always need two pieces of evidence in Scotland - she was arrested and all the rest to try to rattle her into giving up another piece of evidence - the prosecutors were convinced of her guilt and were fishing for the second piece.

Good. That's how it should be, if there's no other conclusive evidence to use against me, I've no motive, I'm fine. Rattle me all you like, I'm not going to "give" you evidence that doesnt exist so your case will fail.

So you would be content to have what happened to McKie happen to you? arrested strip searched and kept in a cell overnight? Simply because your name was on a database and somebody made a mistake?

She was never convicted but I wouldn't want to go thru what hppened to her

What happened to Shirley Mackie is an example of why the database is dangerous

Begging your pardon, but no it's not.

It is an example of why overreliance on circumstantial DNA or fingerprint evidence is dangerous.

But that situation already exists and is not created by the database.

You'd save more peoples life's by restricting car use and placing a blanket 20 mph urban and 50 mph national speed limit, or making cigarettes and drinking illegal.

Graham. I thought her print was on the database of prints - and when they found a print at the scene they incorrectly matched it to her.

If her print had not been on the database " to eliminate her" she would never have been accused. That print would have just been unknown not erroneously attributed to her

You'd save more peoples life's by restricting
car use and placing a blanket 20 mph urban
and 50 mph national speed limit, or making
cigarettes and drinking illegal.

Who said anything about saving lives?

The aim would be to catch criminals. That [i]could[/i] be murderers, but it could also be rapists, muggers, burglars, thieves, conmen, etc etc

Graham. I thought her print was on the database of prints - and when they found a print at the scene they incorrectly matched it to her.

She was a copper at the scene. In the days before databases her print would have been taken for elimination anyway.

The fingerprint database didn't really contribute anything.

Who said anything about saving lives?

The aim would be to catch criminals. That could be murderers, but it could also be rapists, muggers, burglars, thieves, conmen, etc etc

Lots of people in this thread.

Being as you are arguing for this database maybe you could answers some questions please.

You need to know how effective at improving conviction rates this database would be?
Do you have any figures?

How many crimes have there been where there is a lack of suspect and the database would help? i.e What % of cases would this extended database help find a suspect?

I would expect that a very high % of cases there is already a suspect without the database, in these case the extension of the database is not needed as once you have a suspect you can take a sample and eliminate or not.

Given the potential gain in convicted criminals and the cost of the database what would be the cost per-conviction? Is this the most efficient way to spend the money?

We can catch many more criminals if we reduce the requirements for warrants and allow much greater general surveillance. If catching more criminals is your aim why not do this too?

Do you trust the police not to abuse any new power?

theBrick the answers to most of what you ask on one here I think
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539481 take yor pinch of salt with you - you might need it

I did see some numbers which shows that the database was crucial in a relatively small number of crimes solved. I can't see them now

Being as you are arguing for this database maybe you could answers some questions please.

I'll try but I'm just voicing an opinion - it is by no means expert or definitive and I have no more access to figures than you do.

You need to know how effective at improving conviction rates this database would be?
Do you have any figures?

Conviction [i]rates[/i] (i.e. arrests that lead to subsequent convictions) I can't see that they would be particularly altered. However I do believe the number of arrests and hence the number of convictions would increase.

[url= http://www.npia.police.uk/en/8934.htm ]The NPIA state: "Between April 09 and 28th January 2010 the National DNA Database produced 174 matches to murder, 468 to rapes and 27,168 to other crime scenes....Since 1998, more than 300,000 crimes have been detected with the aid of the Database"[/url]

So there is evidence that the existing database is used successfully.

[url= http://www.npia.police.uk/en/13337.htm ]The NPIA also have a nice section on Recent Cases Where DNA Evidence Was Used[/url] including cases where the innocent were acquitted by the DNA evidence.

How many crimes have there been where there is a lack of suspect and the database would help? i.e What % of cases would this extended database help find a suspect?

No idea. [url= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/UK_in_Figs_2002.pdf ]According to the ONS (PDF)[/url] the clear-up rate in England & Wales was around 24% in 2000.

So that suggests 76% of recorded crimes have not lead to a conviction.

I would expect that a very high % of cases there is already a suspect without the database, in these case the extension of the database is not needed as once you have a suspect you can take a sample and eliminate or not.

Agreed. Does that mean the other cases are not worth bothering with?

The [url= http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb0110.pdf ]Home Office (PDF) says that[/url]:
[i]"In 2008/09, around three in four female victims (76%) knew the main or only suspect at the time of the offence.. By comparison, only half (50%) of male victims knew the main or only suspect in 2008/09... In
2008/09, 170 males (37% of all male victims) and 23 females (12% of all female victims) were killed by strangers"[/i]

which strongly suggests "strangers" do feature in a significant number of violent crimes.

(I don't mean to focus just on violent stuff. That's just the document I found in Google. I'm sure the figures for burglary, robbery, muggings, car crime etc would show that a higher percentage are committed by "strangers").

Given the potential gain in convicted criminals and the cost of the database what would be the cost per-conviction? Is this the most efficient way to spend the money?

The "potential gain in convicted criminals"? Are you arguing we shouldn't catch more people because it would be too expensive??

Cost-per-conviction. I don't know. More efficient way to spend the money. There may be.
I do know that most police chiefs (at least publicly) back the current database and [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm ]ACPO have in the past called for debates about a mandatory database[/url].

We can catch many more criminals if we reduce the requirements for warrants and allow much greater general surveillance. If catching more criminals is your aim why not do this too?

Because that DOES impinge on privacy and civil liberty in a very real and tangible way, whereas I can't see how the DNA database does.

Do you trust the police not to abuse any new power?

What "new power" would they have exactly? They already have the ability to ask for a DNA sample while investigating a crime.

you'd be in a strange situation to not be able to confirm your whereabouts (or being in the same area but being innocent), have a quantity of circumstantial evidence against you, have DNA evidence against you and motive for the action, yet still be innocent. The likelyhood has to be small.

It relies on assumption that all domestic abuse is hidden... being done for it relies on the victim wanting [b]you to be done [/b]for it

You're right, that's why it's a stupid argument - and that's the point - it's just like your argument that there are "rapists and thieves" running amok because innocent people won't hand over a "little info". BTW, the "all" domestic abuse claim is your invention entirely.

Interesting also who you think the "you" is likely to be in that situation.

you cannot be convicted on DNA evidence.

I'm not sure about these claims that DNA evidence alone can't be used to sustain a conviction. Can someone source such a claim? What makes England different from Australia in this regard, where someone was in fact convicted of rape on the basis of dodgy DNA evidence and no other evidence?

if there's no other conclusive evidence to use against me, I've no motive, I'm fine

So is having a reg plate on your car and your details in the DVLA database assuming that you are guilty of some motoring offence?

Even criminals are innocent at some point in their lives and serial offenders have to start somewhere. By only having convicted criminals on the database you're ruling out any hope of catching people on their first offence (which could still be for a violent/sickening crime).

Fuzzy - so everyone in the UK should have their DNA on it then?

GrahamS - How many of those matches were with people who were on the database innocently? You still don't distinguish between crimes solved by DNA analysis and those solved by matches from the database

No other country in the world considers this necessary - even in Scotland innocent people do not have their data retained.

konabunny: Mr Jama's case is an interesting example, but you are arguing against the use of DNA evidence, not against the use of a DNA database.

His wrongful conviction arose from a cross-contamination of DNA samples, rather than anything to do with a DNA database.

I've already said in response to TJ that over-reliance on DNA evidence alone is dangerous (same goes for fingerprints, clothes fibres, eyewitnesses, cctv). That doesn't mean there isn't a benefit in having a national mandatory database.

Registration was a tax thing initially, wasn't it?

No idea of the history, but surely a tax disc, VIN number and driver's license could fill this criteria? Having a large unique easily readable sign stuck to the front and back of your car is all about law enforcement and surveillance. It represents a real invasion of privacy because it allows your private movements to be easily tracked.

Fuzzy - so everyone in the UK should have their DNA on it then?

I believe so, yes. (It'll never happen tho)

GrahamS - How many of those matches were with people who were on the database innocently? You still don't distinguish between crimes solved by DNA analysis and those solved by matches from the database

I'm really not sure where I'd get figures for that - so I'll cunningly turn it around: can you show me that no matches have ever been made against someone who is in the existing DNA database but not convicted of a crime?

FuzzyWuzzy makes my point nicely, why is it acceptable to have a database that is only useful for catching convicted people who re-offend within a set time period of release?

FuzzyWuzzy makes my point nicely, why is it acceptable to have a database that is only useful for catching convicted people who re-offend within a set time period of release?

Because they are more likely to re-offend.
If you think like that then you could ask the same question of the sex offenders register.

Another major objection for me is that you cannot trust them to keep accurate records see [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561414/Outrage-at-500000-DNA-database-mistakes.html ]this[/url] (OK its the torygraph but). How easy is it ofr your records to get mixed up with someone else.

Computer says no..

Because they are more likely to re-offend.

And more people commit one offence than two.
Shouldn't we attempt to catch them on the first offence?

If you think like that then you could ask the same question of the sex offenders register.

Eh? That makes no sense at all. You can't put everyone on the sex offenders register and it wouldn't help if you did. You can (in theory) put everyone in a DNA profiling database.

I'll condense this thread so far:

You believe the state owns us and what we do is by permission of the state.

You believe we own the state and we accept some restrictions for the public good.

Another major objection for me is that you cannot trust them to keep accurate records

If you somehow ended up with the wrong DNA record in the database, how hard exactly would it be to demonstrate that was not your DNA?

You believe the state owns us and what we do is by permission of the state.
{I} believe we own the state and we accept some restrictions for the public good.

Nonsense.

I'm a typical middle-class liberal and entirely for civil liberties and the privacy of the individual.

Explain to me how having your DNA profile in a police database would in any measurable way mean you then have to seek "permission of the state" or even that you face "restrictions for the public good"?

How would it impact any part of your life in any way?