DNA on record

[seph]

With all the happens in Ipswich it has got me thinking about DNA once again. I am a firm believer that eveybodies DNA should be on record. I know this may open a reel can worms but-eh if you have nothing to hide, you would have nothing to worry about, would you. The millions it would save on long exhausting investigations that we have to fund would be enormous and criminals that get away with things now would not. This is just my opinion and I would really welcome mine being on record.

[Andy_1984]

With all the happens in Ipswich it has got me thinking about DNA once again. I am a firm believer that eveybodies DNA should be on record. I know this may open a reel can worms but-eh if you have nothing to hide, you would have nothing to worry about, would you. The millions it would save on long exhausting investigations that we have to fund would be enormous and criminals that get away with things now would not. This is just my opinion and I would really welcome mine being on record.

 

 

you say that now but wait till you murder and abuse some dear old ladies cat

[pestguard1]

With all the happens in Ipswich it has got me thinking about DNA once again. I am a firm believer that eveybodies DNA should be on record. I know this may open a reel can worms but-eh if you have nothing to hide, you would have nothing to worry about, would you. The millions it would save on long exhausting investigations that we have to fund would be enormous and criminals that get away with things now would not. This is just my opinion and I would really welcome mine being on record.

 

 

 

Good idea in principle .................but it would never work ........just for the simple reason ....how do you get every one in the world to give there DNA ........................do you realise just what the world population is ?............6,563,051,681 .........and thats just a guess by the experts............not to mention those in remote areas.

I have no objection to having mine on file ..........................I`m allready a blood donor and a bone marrow doner , so having DNA on file is is fine by me.

[Lid]

Mistakes will still be made with DNA evidence. Don't let us forget that DNA evidence is often not proof enough that the owner of that DNA is actually guilty. There are all sorts of ways your DNA could fit you up for a crime you didn't actually commit at all. Example - you move a broken beer bottle out the road and cut your finger, getting blood on the bottle (as well as fingerprints). Ten minutes later in someone is attacked and killed with the same bottle. If your DNA is on file, it's may be be a hard job to prove your innocence.

 

In addition setting up a compulsory DNA database is something which could be abused in the future. OK, maybe this government is unlikely to use the information in such a way, but if a system was put in place, what will stop the information being used for other purposes? Insurance companies won't believe their luck when they realise they can filter out the population, charging higher premiums to those with health problems and even those with a line of illness in their family.

[Elton]

With all the happens in Ipswich it has got me thinking about DNA once again. I am a firm believer that eveybodies DNA should be on record. I know this may open a reel can worms but-eh if you have nothing to hide, you would have nothing to worry about, would you.

 

Yeah, 'cos there's never been a bent copper.......

[chesters1]

Mistakes will still be made with DNA evidence. Don't let us forget that DNA evidence is often not proof enough that the owner of that DNA is actually guilty. There are all sorts of ways your DNA could fit you up for a crime you didn't actually commit at all. Example - you move a broken beer bottle out the road and cut your finger, getting blood on the bottle (as well as fingerprints). Ten minutes later in someone is attacked and killed with the same bottle. If your DNA is on file, it's may be be a hard job to prove your innocence.

 

In addition setting up a compulsory DNA database is something which could be abused in the future. OK, maybe this government is unlikely to use the information in such a way, but if a system was put in place, what will stop the information being used for other purposes? Insurance companies won't believe their luck when they realise they can filter out the population, charging higher premiums to those with health problems and even those with a line of illness in their family.

i agree (and have voiced the same thing in the past) i have no problem in DNA being used to pin point a suspect but it should NEVER be used as evidence alone ,we all have had "experts" in the past getting convictions on their "evidence" alone and we have seen their "evidence" fall apart once fully challenged ,DNA whilst pretty convincing is certainly not infallible and relies as finger prints do to certain "markers" being similar in 2 cases ,ofcourse the more "markers" you use the more compelling it is ,fingerprints in this country compared to "stock" fingerprints use far less markers here than in other countries and i expect DNA markers would as well.

theres plenty of innocents in prison jailed under purely speculative finger print evidence and ther will be plenty more if DNA was used alone.

the sad thing is if your innocent and come up for parole and deny the fact you did it (if your innocent why should you) you wont get out

the reason the "success" rate in convictions is high is because innocent people say their guilty to get out of the prison they shouldn't be in in the first place rather than stay inside as a innocent person wrongly convicted due to dodgy or made up "evidence"

[Leon Roskilly]

It's interesting that even if a criminal's DNA is not on file, that it could still be used to find him.

 

For instance, familial DNA could provide his likely surname.

 

Other strands could prdict his height, build, hair colour etc.,

 

And rapid advances means that there is no longer the need to send samples to laboraties, and wait weeks for processing, increasingly it can now be done right away at the scene of the crime.

 

Interesting too that with such tiny samples now needed, you have probably left viable DNA samples everywhere you have ever visited, sweat, fingerprints too smudgy to be read 20 years ago can now pinpoint you, even DNA from your breath remains on surfaces.

 

And we are still at a very early stage of development of the technology!

[hembo]

i think this proves your point leon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6173110.stm

 

quite literally dna research is still in it infancy,govt ministers etc are now being advised on not wiping there mouth after dinner in case any intrepid reporter can check his dna on a napkin and find out whether he has the probability of alzeimers etc.

[Mat Hillman]

I object to having my DNA on file for the simple reason that no system is perfect and mistakes happen.

If my details aren't in the system, they can't come out by mistake when someone searches it!

 

Mat

[Yogi]

I've no objection to authority's having my DNA, think there's a couple of coppers already with mine from when I threw up over them.

 

ID cards don't bother me either, the only thing that does bother me with ID cards is paying the proposed £80 to have the privledge of owning one.

 

Yogi.