Home & Garden1 min ago
Dna Database.......bravo Eu!
I for one am delighted to thank the EU for adding to the rare occasions when they do something useful. Why did it take 5 years?
http://
Would anyone like to speculate as to what would happen if a criminal was tracked down as a result of DNA that is now illiogallu held?
http://
Would anyone like to speculate as to what would happen if a criminal was tracked down as a result of DNA that is now illiogallu held?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DangerUXD. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A step in the wrong direction. What does it matter if the whole country had their DNA taken and put on a central register. What have the innocent got to hide? It is an excellent tool for the police to use as it could eliminate those under suspicion in many cases.
Personally I think they should take a swab soon after birth.
Personally I think they should take a swab soon after birth.
pdq, so civil liberties, which have been eroded bit by bit, hence my somewhat constant criticism of cctv cameras, would have us all guilty before being proved innocent. As been pointed out, any DNA sample could be planted wherever the person wished, to incriminate the innocent, not something that should ever happen. If we are innocent till proven guilty then that is the way the legal system should work. Not lets plant some DNA evidence on some innocent person, because we can't find the real criminal.
Such data can be misused. No good citizen should have to have that sort of personal information held by the State. None of the State's business.
Is the directive is complied with how can someone be tracked down by illegally held data, especially illegally held by law enforcement agencies ?
In any case such a tactic would merely boil down a number of possible foik who might have been at the scene of the crime, maybe. In reality it can only give a little supporting evidence, so the proper policework needs to be done first anyway, and once the suspect is caught where was the value of keeping the database after the arrest ?
Is the directive is complied with how can someone be tracked down by illegally held data, especially illegally held by law enforcement agencies ?
In any case such a tactic would merely boil down a number of possible foik who might have been at the scene of the crime, maybe. In reality it can only give a little supporting evidence, so the proper policework needs to be done first anyway, and once the suspect is caught where was the value of keeping the database after the arrest ?
With the right checks and balances in place having a national DNA database with everyone on it would hardly lead to massive amounts of false convictions. I think the problem is that it's hard to guarantee that those checks and balances will ever work properly 100% of the time, and it only takes one false conviction to call the whole system into question.
So would you prefer a system whereby a rapist with no previous convictions commits multiple rapes and is not immediately detected because his DNA is not on file?
I do not see how false convictions will occur simply because the DNA of everybody acquitted, or everybody in Britain, is on file. I can readily see how many criminals will be committing crimes and not immediately detected because it isn't.
I do not see how false convictions will occur simply because the DNA of everybody acquitted, or everybody in Britain, is on file. I can readily see how many criminals will be committing crimes and not immediately detected because it isn't.
Quite, aog. We have the position that anyone arrested and charged may have their fingerprints, photograph, and DNA sample taken. Suppose that the DNA will show they are the rapist or murderer whom the police have been looking for. Are the police not to be allowed to then and there make the comparison with the DNA found in their investigations of those crimes, before the person is convicted or acquitted of whatever offence that person is presently charged?
I'm a little perplexed about how the DNA derived from a tiny buccal swab can be 'planted' anywhere the authorities like.
I'd appreciate someone with more scientific knowledge correcting me if I'm wrong here, but so far as I understand it the cells absorbed by a cheek swab are still identifiably cells taken from the inner mouth. If I'm right on that, the number of crime scenes this kind of evidence would blend seamlessly into does diminish somewhat.
I'd appreciate someone with more scientific knowledge correcting me if I'm wrong here, but so far as I understand it the cells absorbed by a cheek swab are still identifiably cells taken from the inner mouth. If I'm right on that, the number of crime scenes this kind of evidence would blend seamlessly into does diminish somewhat.
In theory it is a good idea to hold a database.
However practice would certainly be another matter. The boys in Blue are not averse to manipulation or misuse, neither are papers or Governments.
For instance, can you imagine what another control freak like Blair would do if he had that at his fingertips?
However practice would certainly be another matter. The boys in Blue are not averse to manipulation or misuse, neither are papers or Governments.
For instance, can you imagine what another control freak like Blair would do if he had that at his fingertips?
No, they can't 'plant it' as DNA, but they can put something with the defendant's DNA on it at the scene. They could with fingerprints as fingerprints, still can, by doing a transferred lift .
Defending against DNA evidence you are stuck with innocent association; that the defendant had left his DNA at some time other than in commission of the crime; attacking the quality of the sample; that it is not good enough to make the chances of it being the defendant's particularly high; or that there has been incompetence in analysis.
Where the suspect's DNA has been misfiled , so the wrong man has been arrested, the answer is to take a proper sample, which won't match the misfiled sample.
Defending against DNA evidence you are stuck with innocent association; that the defendant had left his DNA at some time other than in commission of the crime; attacking the quality of the sample; that it is not good enough to make the chances of it being the defendant's particularly high; or that there has been incompetence in analysis.
Where the suspect's DNA has been misfiled , so the wrong man has been arrested, the answer is to take a proper sample, which won't match the misfiled sample.
Latest Posts
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News2 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Music7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.