Ok last night I was in the office late, and again this morning to meet a 10 am deadline, it was last minute, but that's what my clients rely on, my ability to deliver at a moments notice. If I got arrested last night on my way back into the office as a result of a DNA mix up and sat in a cell for 3 days protesting my innocence I would lose my client not to mention the stress and how difficult things would be for my wife and kids. Is this OK? People are wrongfully arrested all the time (I haven't heard about any because of DNA mix ups) but I for one do not think its OK.
Barry George was convicted because they found a speck of gunpowder on his clothes, it is now accepted that this could easily have been contaminated during his arrest or at any time after.
Happily Graham S you are in the minority, Long may it continue.
Graham. I see no reason why innocent people should have to prove their innocence.
Look at the McKie case - and others you have been shown
Having innocent people on the DNA database gives them more chance of being arrested when innocent.
Your DNA is innocently left at a crime scene. The cops have no leads. They are going to come to you. it will not be nice. if you were not on the database they wouldn't come to you.
It would not be a case of Hi Mr Grahams. Can we just have a cosy chat. No - you would be arrested and taken tot eh cells. Deliberately done to put you under psychological stress to shake other info out of you.
having your data on the database makes this more likely.
No of course I don't think people being wrongfully arrested is OK, but I don't see how a DNA database would make wrongful arrests more likely.
They are just as likely to be able to eliminate you from enquiries without even having to speak to you.
As I said earlier, I've had DNA taken twice as part of two murder investigations. The police may not have had to do that if a mandatory database existed.
Well put TJ.
GrahamS By saying you have no problem with it or any of the objections raised here you are saying you wouldn't mind being kept in a cell for three days and the associated stress and suffering whilst you wait to prove your innocence. I've seen the police operating at close quarters, and not all of them are as friendly as you think. Some of them are downright power junkies, being on the receiving end of this is not nice.
Graham. I see no reason why innocent people should have to prove their innocence. Look at the McKie case - and others
Right so where is your line?
• The DVLA database shows I have a car matching the suspect vehicle.
• CCTV shows someone matching my description in the area of the crime.
• ATM records show I made a withdrawal nearby two minutes before the crime.
• Credit Card records show I purchased a big knife, some duct tape and tarp from the local B&Q
• mobile phone records place me in the area of the crime, making a 999 call and then hanging up.
• skin tissue containing my DNA is found under the nails of the victim.
which, if any, of these database matches should cause the police to interview and arrest me?
Any of them could have an innocent explanation and may result in a wrongful arrest.
Having innocent people on the DNA database
gives them more chance of being arrested
when innocent.
So we're back to: it's okay for people with a prior conviction to be wrongfully arrested?
it's okay for people with a prior conviction to be wrongfully arrested?
Its a matter of balance. Given the higher risk of offending of previous offenders and the fact that by being convicted they lose some rights then I think its OK they are on the database. Innocent people I don't believe it is
Most of the things you list are not kept on databases to be referred back to in years to come and some are voluntary.
If you have faith in this system and the police how come only 48% of cops who have to be on the database (those who come into contact with crime scenes) have actually complied with this requirement.
My answer would be because they do not want their civil liberties infringed but by your rational they must be criminals with something to hide. If so then we should have even less trust in the cops..
Most of the things you list are not kept on databases to be referred back to in years to come and some are voluntary.
Not relevant. Would you agree that it would be reasonable for the police to want to speak to me and possibly detain me on the basis of ANY of those matches?
If so then why is the DNA one unreasonable?
My answer would be because they do not want their civil liberties infringed but by your rational they must be criminals with something to hide.
That's not "my rationale" at all.
Not once have I trotted out any bollocks about "Nothing to hide if you've done nothing wrong", or any such bogus cliches.
Ah well sorry I was just lumping you in with all the others who do say that. lazy arguing..
But how do you explain that even members of the Police force do not like the idea of being on the database?
Can you not see teh difference?
Can you not see teh difference?
Not really, no.
All are circumstantial evidence, mainly provided by databases.
Of the scenarios I listed I personally think it would be reasonable for the police to at least want to talk to me in most of them.
The credit card at B&Q, the 999 on the mobile, and the DNA match might all justify a more formal interview at a station.
konabunny: Mr Jama's case is an interesting example, but you are arguing against the use of DNA evidence.
No, I'm not. If you read the post, you'll see I'm using it as an example of a case where a conviction was made entirely on the basis of DNA evidence. I'm also asking whether anyone who has asserted that it is not possible to make such a conviction in the UK can substantiate that claim and/or illustrate a difference with the Australian common law that makes it possible for it to happen there but not in the UK.
all of the others apart from the DNA database are voluntary or information in the public domain. DNA database is compulsory despite not having committed a crime and the information is not in the public domain.
Its a massive difference.
England and Wales are the only countries in the world where this is allowed - the retention of information from innocent people.
[url= http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/crime/5021464.What_Hampshire_thinks_of_the_DNA_database/ ]clicky[/url]
about half way down the page in the bit where Supt Hogg gives the case for the DNA database he states:
In any UK court you cannot be convicted on the basis of DNA alone. There has to be other evidence to prove you committed a crime.
The case of S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom
The judgment
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, stating:
"In conclusion, the Court finds that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constitutes a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society"
Key points in the judgment are:
* Given the nature and the amount of personal information contained in cellular samples, their retention per se must be regarded as interfering with the right to respect for the private lives of the individuals concerned.
* The DNA profiles' capacity to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships is in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interferes with the right to the private life of the individuals concerned.
* In view of the foregoing, the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles discloses an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
* The retention of fingerprints also constitutes an interference with the right to respect for private life.
* Other countries have chosen to set limits on the retention and use of such data with a view to achieving a proper balance with the competing interests of preserving respect for private life.
* Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bears a special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.
* The Court is struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales.
* Weighty reasons would have to be put forward by the Government before the Court would regard as justified such a difference in treatment of the applicants' private data compared to that of other unconvicted people.
* The retention of the unconvicted persons' data may be especially harmful in the case of minors, given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society.
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-563146
related
[url= http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/analysis/2255995/dna-committee ]clicky[/url]
Also here at the bottom :
• There is a very small, but finite chance that two unrelated people could share the same DNA profile. For these reasons police cannot convict a person on DNA evidence alone.
I was originally told this by my mate who is a lawyer working on "rough justice" cases with convicted murders.
> You are arguing against the use
of DNA evidence.No, I'm not. If you read the post, you'll see I'm using it as an example of a case where a conviction was made entirely on the basis of DNA evidence.
Okay, you are arguing against DNA evidence being the sole evidence in a case. A position which I entirely agree with. No case should rest on a single piece of evidence and the fact that some do points to a failing in the prosecution system, rather than a problem with a DNA database.
If you think such a database would increase the number of cases brought purely on the basis of a DNA match then I understand your concern, but to me that would be a reason to fix the laws surrounding the burden of evidence, not just avoid using a potentially useful investigation tool.
all of the others apart from the DNA database are voluntary or information in the public domain. DNA database is compulsory despite not having committed a crime and the information is not in the public domain.
My bank, credit card and mobile records are not public domain. They are not even particularly voluntary in todays world.
My DNA however IS public domain. I leave little DNA traces in public wherever I go. They are as public as footprints.
My bank, credit card and mobile records are not public domain. They are not even particularly voluntary in todays world.
completely voluntary. I don't have a moblie or use a card often.
and your DNA data is not public domain - no one knows it is yours Same as footprints.
Read the judgement I posted
TJ: that case relates to the retention of original samples. I agree there is no reason to keep such samples and that keeping then does open the door to possible future abuse.
A DNA profile should be quite sufficient.
it also includes the profile data
[b]The DNA profiles'[/b] capacity to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships is in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interferes with the right to the private life of the individuals concerned.
* In view of the foregoing, [b]the retention[/b] of both cellular samples and [b]DNA profiles[/b] discloses an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.
No other country in the world attempts to retain the data on innocents. not even Scotland - why - 'cos it is clear invasion of privacy.
completely voluntary. I don't have a moblie or use a card often.
Okay, yes, you can choose not to have a mobile phone, computer, credit card, bank account, motorised transport and avoid areas with CCTV.
But realistically those things are pretty compulsory to every day modern life and avoiding them would be a major intrusion.
Thus they represent a far more measurable infringement of civil liberty than having a DNA profile on a police database.
No other country in the world attempts to retain
the data on innocents. not even Scotland - why
- 'cos it is clear invasion of privacy.
Again, WHAT PRIVACY?
What thing is it that you currently do privately that you could not do privately if you had a recorded DNA profile?
Graham CCTV data is not stored for ever. NO parallel.
Mobile phone records need a warrent to be used. so a judge has to agree there is good reason.
Neither applies to DNA database evidence
There is no parallel here
Thank god the courts don't agree with you. Even the limited retention for 6 yrs in England will be challenged in the courts and will be rejected by them I am sure
Its is such a clear invasion of privacy without safeguards and without justification
privacy. I do not want my data recorded. It is my data. Recording my data without my consent is invasion of privacy.
It is private until I let you have it. If you take it you have invaded my privacy
There are times when this is right for the state to do. However it must be proportionate and this is not.
If you are pro dna database or pro id card cos you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be allowed curtains or window blinds either.
privacy. I do not want my data recorded. It is my data. Recording my data without my consent is invasion of privacy. It is private until I let you have it. If you take it you have invaded my privacy
That's a bit weak TJ. Just because. It's private cos it's notionally private (even though you happily drop it publicly everywhere you go).
The point remains if you appear in the database then there should be no real impact whatsoever on your life or your ability to conduct that life in privacy.
Things such as CCTV, GCHQ, ISP records, phone records, registration plates, bank account monitoring, etc have absolutely massive impacts on [i]real[/i] privacy (i.e. the ability of a law-abiding citizen to conduct their affairs in private).
I just don't consider a DNA Profile database to be remotely in the same league as any of them.
If you are pro dna database or pro id card cos you have nothing to hide...
I'm not. Read back a page and save your rhetoric.
The point remains if you appear in the database then there [b]should[/b] be no real impact whatsoever on your life or your ability to conduct that life in privacy.
Who cares. I want my data and my DNA profile to remin soley my property to do with as I want
Shed skin cells cannot be linked to me nor are they on a database nor have they been analysed into a dna profile
anyway - should not is not nearly a good enough safeguard. there are no safeguards on the DNA database - once you are on there you have no say over what happens to it
Your other stuff is irrelevant anyway - just 'cos the state invades your privacy in one way that does not make another invasion of privacy any more palatable
anyway - should not is not nearly a good enough safeguard. there are no safeguards on the DNA database - once you are on there you have no say over what happens to it
The same could be said for the DVLA, TV license, national insurance etc
But what safeguards would you like to see?
I assume they are already subject to the same rules of the Data Protection Act as anyone else?
Your other stuff is irrelevant anyway - just 'cos the state invades your privacy in one way that does not make another invasion of privacy any more palatable
Perhaps not, but it does place it in context.
A invasion of notional privacy that has no real effect on your day-to-day ability to be private; compared to mechanisms that are specifically put in place to ensure that very little of your life is private and that you are continually monitored just in case you do something bad.
Okay, you are arguing against DNA evidence being the sole evidence in a case.
No, I'm not. It might be perfectly reasonable to convict solely on the basis of DNA evidence. What is happening is that there are a lot of very confident assertions about what evidence law is in the various jurisdictions of the UK and I'm wondering if those assertions are accurate.
Honestly no idea konabunny. I would [i]hope[/i] a UK prosecution would demand strong evidence to make it to trial.
My personal experience in such matters suggests it is hard to get a conviction, even when there is mountains of evidence.
No, I'm not. It might be perfectly reasonable to convict solely on the basis of DNA evidence. What is happening is that there are a lot of very confident assertions about what evidence law is in the various jurisdictions of the UK and I'm wondering if those assertions are accurate.
Those assertions are accurate, I showed you the links and my lawyer mate told me so. As this forum is not a court of law I think my representations are accurate enough for the sake of discussion. I've done some work to back up what I said, why don't you do some to prove me wrong instead of just opposing it all the time?
If a person is to be charged on the basis of a DNA match, the CPS require that there must be supporting non-DNA evidence available to be used in evidence. No-one is ever prosecuted solely on the basis of a DNA match; the DNA evidence is one piece of the information that the courts would require for a successful prosecution.....
From [url= http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=DNA_profiling ]wikicrime[/url]
Keep your hair on, old chap, no need to fire up the rant-o-tron quite yet. your answer came [i]after [/i]I asked my question.
I haven't disagreed with the assertions, I asked what they were substantiated by - if one of the recurrent self-reassuring claims by some of those in favour of a permanent DNA database is "I'm not worried by the potential for abuse of DNA records because they can't fit me up using them alone" (paraphrasing), then I was wondering what's the basis for the premise.
I didn't even mention that a throwaway comment by a non-lawyer in a town rag (when he is pushing the DNA database wagon), a bullet point in a PC dork magazine (which seems to be suggesting that the theoretical potential for apparently identical DNA results means that a conviction can't be sustained - but that's a far higher standard than the beyond [i]reasonable[/i] doubt standard required in criminal trials), an unsourced claim on a wiki page (which can't really decide whether it's CPS policy not to proceed with DNA evidence prosecutions only or whether it's actually a rule of evidence, and conspicuously fails to mention either case law or statute, probably PACE) and "my mate told me" aren't particularly convincing. I didn't even suggest that all these comfortable assertions seem to have been made without the asserters (?) actually being sure of what they're saying before they say it. So really no need to get so agitated about it all.
GrahamS - Member
Honestly no idea konabunny. I would hope a UK prosecution would demand strong evidence to make it to trial.
Wait, hold on - are you suggesting that DNA evidence is not strong evidence?
Well I said it with confidence because a) I am not a bullshitter and b) my mate the lawyer know more about this than you. So if you want to carry on down this road, the simple answer is BLOW ME YOU ****T.
Toys - after the stick you gave me for asserting without proof on another subject despite the fact it was an opinion then that really is a bit rich.
Sod off TJ.
[i]*sigh*[/i] ...and we managed to get so far without dissolving into name calling.
Wait, hold on - are you suggesting that DNA evidence is not strong evidence?
It is very strong evidence that your DNA is present.
That is about all that can be said for definite (and even that excludes any ****ups by the forensics blokes or the very slim possibility of it being an identical profile from someone else).
The strength of it as evidence in court that you were present and involved in the crime is entirely dependent on the context.
I would be dismayed to hear of a UK case where literally the only piece of evidence offered was DNA, even if the context it was found in was deeply incriminating.
konabunny: if it makes you happier the quote on wikicrime is correctly cited. It is from [url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070105/text/70105w0026.htm ]a Hansard transcript of a question to the Secretary of State regarding the DNA database[/url]:
Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of cases in which an arrest was made on the basis of DNA evidence was the DNA evidence found to be mistaken or false, since the establishment of the National DNA Database. [108546]8 Jan 2007 : Column 134W
Joan Ryan: It is not necessarily straightforward to say that an arrest is made on the basis of DNA evidence, as police investigations will often involve looking at several different types of evidence including DNA, and an arrest may be made on the basis of the whole package of evidence. We are, however, aware of two cases in which arrests were made on the basis of mistaken DNA evidence since the establishment of the NDNAD in 1995.
..
If a person is to be charged on the basis of a DNA match, the CPS require that there must be supporting non-DNA evidence available to be used in evidence. No-one is ever prosecuted solely on the basis of a DNA match; the DNA evidence is one piece of the information that the courts would require for a successful prosecution.
There is nothing like a bit of name calling in the morning, sorry konabunny it was out of frustration and I hadn't had my coffee, so please accept my sincere apologies.
I knew it was right I just couldn't find the right source, so thanks GrahamS. (It also happens to be exactly the same wording as one fo my earlier sources.)
TJ you can try and criticise me for posting "opinion" (it wasn't an opinion anyway it was Ms Lawyers statement of fact, given that she has won awards from the Lord Chancellor and wins lots of cases I think she know her onions) but I also posted a few links and now we have a pretty comprehensive case for my assertion being true. After 3 days of arguing with you elsewhere you still failed to even provide a tenuous link never mind a decent one like Wikicrime or even Hansard. So you can take konabunnies place, on your knees, in front of me.
toys merely pointing out the hypocrisy
I was not criticising you for posting opinion. I was criticising you for double standards.
You gave me a load of stick for giving [i]my considered opinion[/i] that you disagreed with. I never pretended it was anything other than my considered opinion. Yo wanted absolute incontrovertible proof that my opinion was correct. This is of course impossible. I did not claim it as fact
Then you assert as fact something that
Well I said it with confidence because a) I am not a bullshitter and b) my mate the lawyer know more about this than you.
Hoist by your own petard I believe.
You might well be right - but if you demand absolute proof for something which is opinion then you need to adhere to the same standard yourself especially if you claim it as fact.
Just chill eh? accept a good natured teasing 😉
Damn you all. I was enjoying a rather interesting debate and exchange of ideas.
Now it's all collapsed into bickering and childish name calling.
You all smell!
Nahh TJ your wrong.
1) I didn't post anyone's opinion, I posted a fact told to me by someone who knows. If Stephen Hawking told me a fact about Physics and I reported it here would you say "Like that's just your opinion man" ???
2) I didn't ask you for incontrovertible proof of anything, I asked you for at least some evidence to which you couldn't supply a shred, all you could give me was your own twisted perception. In fact your reading of it that what I wanted incontrovertible proof just goes to show how twisted your perception is.
Speaking of hypocrisy, telling me to chill out when you are the one normally getting your knickers in twist is a bit rich isn't it?
If you don't think this
is good natured ribbing then you better come round and take your punishment like a man..So you can take konabunnies place, on your knees, in front of me.
