Judge: "Put everyone in UK on the DNA database"

[John]

"One of the UK's top judges has thrown a grenade into the smouldering debate around the national DNA database, saying that everyone in the UK - including visitors from overseas - should be on file."
- News source here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/05/beak_sez_all_ur_dna_r_belong_to_us/).

I think it's a great idea as criminals can potentially be caught much quicker, or in some circumstances - caught, where previously they may not of.

Putting a side the problems this would bring; Over-crowding prisons, £££ to setup etc, what do you think about this idea? Would you mind your DNA being on file?

[Ellie]

I think as soon as kids start school their fingerprints and DNA should be taken. Finger prints are set while in the womb and don't change during life (unless due to injury like one of mine! Sliced it once...oops) they only get larger. This way the schools and the country have something on record of the child should the child go missing and for use in later life should they commit offenses.

It may act as a deterrent too. I mean, I wouldn't want to commit a crime knowing they've already got my fingerprints and DNA from when I was 4!!

[dgellis0907]

I think its just easier for everything solving crime wise if everyone was Dna'ed
suprised such a suggestion is only just being taken seriously
the advantages outweigh the disadvantages 100 - 1 in my opinion

[Q]

Yes, as a police officer I think this is a great way forward. Presently, DNA can only be taken from someone who has/suspected of committing and offence, and by immigration or voluntarily. If it was mandatory it would definately clear up alot of old cases (where modern DNA/Forensic procedures can solve many year old cases) and also act as a huge deterent for the more serious crimes, such as sexual assults.

It would also assist us greatly if everyone was on record - there have been so many instances of us having good forensic evidence, such as DNA - but never matching it to anyone, due to the database only holding details of those previousley arrested, and not those who have not yet been caught.

It is also good for other uses, say a child gets lost, someone gets sweapt out to sea, stolen babies, anything where facial features or other identifying marks make it hard to tell who the person is.

There will be those who say no because they think its an invation of their privacy or whatever, but I dont see that as a valid excuse. The law is so strict on the holding/maintaining the DNA/Fingerprint and PNC databases Its not like the DNA would be used for anything other than solving crimes or eliminating people from enquiries.

[sinister]

Let's go further than that and implant RFID chips in babies at birth. Just like they do to your pets at the vet.
While I can see the positives of such a database, looking back through history I can also see the negatives and possible abuse of such information.

It all depends on who's holding the reigns of power too. I don't subscribe to the 'if your not doing anything wrong you've nothing to worry about' line of thinking. Not in this era of 'extraordinary rendition' and European governments collusion with US security organisations in the kidnap and torture of their own citizens.

This sort of database in the wrong hands? That sort of thing wouldn't happen here? Do a bit of research into Harold Wilsons time as prime minister and what the British security forces had planned if things didn't pan out how they had wanted. And that was in the mid seventies.

[Q]

If we always looked at what happened in the past we would never advance in the future!

Microchipping is very different. DNA can be used for many purposes, mostly good; a microchip has one use only - to monitor where people are/have been, or to store information about things. We probably already have most information that a microchip would hold on databases, so why not improve an existing system by adding a DNA profile to that record. During times like these (with heightened security levels, more shootings/murders than there has been for a long time) something drastic needs to be done. DNA is only usually taken AFTER a crime has been commited, and surely its a good thing if police can solves crimes in a much faster/easier way, and gurantee to catch the right people for some horrific crimes? There is no way to 'monitor' peoples whereabouts with DNA, so to me it really does seem as though its a good idea. I really do believe that if you dont commit crime, then whats the harm in doing it - there is nothing to fear. I cant understand why any government would kidnap and torture the average Joe like you or me walking down the street. There must be some extraordinary reason for them to do so, in which case id probably have something they wanted. I dont see how my DNA would help them to establish this though...

[Console]

I'm actually split on this, on the one hand there is the increased benefit to the police and law enforcement agencies to help solve crimes and identify people, but on the other hand, there's the privacy issue; your DNA is one of the most unique things about you and giving up that is a privacy concern, especially considering the record of security in other similar, but smaller, databases.

I don't think it will actually deter people from committing crimes though, it wouldn't stop spur of the moment crimes, and if a person wanted to commit a crime and not get caught they'd only have to either make sure they don't leave DNA samples anywhere or to make sure that many other DNA samples are present so that theirs gets lost in the noise.

As a side note, we're actually reaching the point where manipulating live cells to change DNA is possible, so even if career criminals did leave DNA at the scene of a crime it is very possible for the to have their DNA changed.

[Q]

You both raise some interesting points, and I suppose there is no right or wrong answer to this; some people will be for it, some against it, and some all together unsure/not bothered.

I think the most interesting/scary point you raised Console is about the manipulation of DNA. It makes me wonder how long it will be before they manage to turn that into a weapon to use against people.

[sinister]

The other thing with DNA evidence, how do you challenge the findings? As far as I'm aware there are different levels of matching samples. I remember there being a bit of a debate within scientific circles about the methods employed by the crown, with results turning out to be not as unique as first claimed. I think it was down to the amount of unique markers to positively identify two samples as the same. There was also an issue regarding lab conditions and testing of the samples.

Wouldn't it make it very easy to set some one up with a few well placed hair, skin, fluid samples at a crime scene?

But to my first point, how the hell do you challenge the findings of a DNA report?

As for the historical thing, if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past then your doomed to make them again in the future.

[Riz]

Im a bit on the fence, but was immediately swayed towards being against it, so ive voted no for that reason.

Im reading 1984 at the minute, and to me, taking everyones DNA and fingerprints and storing it on a database is one step closer to a totalitarian society.

[Harriii]

i think they shud deffinately do that, it wud help reduce the serious crimes like rape cuz people will know that their DNA will b found so there is no point.

[John]

On a lighter note, wouldn't it be more politically correct to have everyone on the DNA register. I mean, how long until criminals start crying out as being victims of 'Big Brother'.

Which brings me on to my next question. Console brought something up which I felt was pretty important. And that is the issue that the DNA database does not stop people from commiting crimes. As a preventative measure, it is about as good as a chocolate fireguard, but then again, that isn't what it's about.

So, what to do then? At the stem of the problem on the streets I personally think (or at least what I see from my local police force), they have to be so careful in their actions and have to be way to tollerant.

And as for our courts, what a JOKE! There are countless examples of criminals getting too short of a sentence and those who should get a true life sentence, but don't.

So, would those 2 examples cut down on crime? If not, then how? Not a fan of nanny states and I wouldn't make much of a liberal, sorry.

[tamba]

The best way to deal is crime is to bring back hanging, the Birch or any of the other punishments to suit the crime. Having your DNA on record will not deter any criminals imo, just look at the state of our Country now. How many humans were killed in the last 2 weeks. If we come down harder on the offenders crime will drop. Harsh reality, but it surley would work.

[Console]

The best way to deal is crime is to bring back hanging, the Birch or any of the other punishments to suit the crime.

Capital punishment doesn't deter people from committing crimes, it simply stops them from doing it again.

[John]

The best way to deal is crime is to bring back hanging, the Birch or any of the other punishments to suit the crime. Having your DNA on record will not deter any criminals imo, just look at the state of our Country now. How many humans were killed in the last 2 weeks. If we come down harder on the offenders crime will drop. Harsh reality, but it surley would work.

...And deals with prison overcrowding issues.

[Console]

By murdering people? Yeah, that's a fantastic solution. What happens if an innocent person is sentenced to death? If prison is the sentence there's at least a way back from it.

The solution to prison overcrowding is simply to build more prisons, or to have alternate punishments for non-violent crimes.

[Ali]

When i opened this thread i had a very set opinion, now i have no idea whether it's a good or bad thing :|

[Console]

Well, like many things in life it has it's advantages and disadvantages, and it's just a matter of whether the advantages outway the disadvantages and the disadvantages are acceptable or not.

[bbb]

well said console u have the same opin as me on this and have put it acroos better than i could have i would add that it is very easy to mix up ur dna when ppl are 1st being put on it as human eur can meen someone dint lable it or anything else thi i would like to how will it prevent crim as it cant its more of a pasvie way of finding people faster

[postie]

I cant see a reason why not have a national database as long as its used for one purpose then its fine

and to be honest there is tons of information about everyone in some way or another anyway

[John]

By murdering people? Yeah, that's a fantastic solution. What happens if an innocent person is sentenced to death? If prison is the sentence there's at least a way back from it.

The solution to prison overcrowding is simply to build more prisons, or to have alternate punishments for non-violent crimes.

Yup, totally agree - The wrong people could possibly be sentenced to death if the system/rules are found to be faulty.

And yes, more jails would still be required because a sentence to death I believe should only be used in the most intolerable of circumstances and where it is 100% unquestionable that the accused is guilty.

[Sunny So Cal]

On the microchipping issue for pets -- did anyone hear on the news recently that the microchips are causing cancer in some pets? Let's hold off on microchipping people...

[Console]

Alternatively, we could microchip everyone and then the DNA database wouldn't matter as the Electromagnetic radiation will mutate our DNA anyway making matching more difficult than it is now.

As a secondary effect, the whole human race may be killed of and do away with the need for law and order all together.

[Sunny So Cal]

a cheery thought that would indeed make the whole poll pointless