Child DNA Profiling... Or something...

Potential-Monke

A topic that i brought up in class one day, and it really split the class. Granted, the class were already split on another topic, but this made it worse!

Anyway, i made the suggestion that, in order to possibly prevent or detect future crimes, that every child born from now on have their DNA taken and a record kept on file forever. The child wouldn't mind (it was just born, it's more interested in crying than having a bit of blood/hair/whatever taken).

This would be extremely beneficial as it would possibly prevent crime by that person knowing that if they did anything there is a very high liklihood that they would be caught easily, and it would detect crime alot easier in the majority of bad cases such as rape and murder.

Now, i was in favour of this, obviously, but the other half of the class were completely and dead against it, and some of which even began to insult me for bringing it up (thats their fault f they're childish). But, when i asked for a decent logical reason for why they were against it, they just simply said Human Rights, but never elaborated.

What i want to know is are you:

A: All for it, take my DNA, i've no intention of ever committing a crime and i think it's a good idea,

or

B: Completely against it, get away from me, how dare you take anything belonging to me, i'll get caught for that murder there last year.

Well, ok, B is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the jist... Surely the only people against the idea would be those who would break or have broken the law?

And if someone is going to quote Human Rights, please elaborate. Smeers!

catyb20

I would be all for it! I actually can't think of a reason to be against it at all....

Stercus Accidit

Governments are inept,

they cant store or control their data,

a mistake will result in an unquestionable guilty verdict,

it will be piss easy to frame someone.

jd83

if a goverment were to try bring this in it would be like your class a lot people would be yh thats a good idea and a lot would have serious issues with it, ie. their rights and privacy, and there would be framing and lots of other problems with it.

Mad_Max

Motosam wrote: »

Governments are inept,

they cant store or control their data,

a mistake will result in an unquestionable guilty verdict,

it will be piss easy to frame someone.

Think thats a very valid argument. I'd be for it in the sense that it would obviously be of help in solving cases very quickly and thus possibly deterring people.

However when you see how the likes of the british government seem to loose personal data quite easily. Youd have to wonder how this DNA data would be stored.

In what circumstances do you think framing could happen motosam? Do you mean someone kinda "planting" DNA, or someone corrupt mis-identifying it?

Stercus Accidit

Mad_Max wrote: »

In what circumstances do you think framing could happen motosam? Do you mean someone kinda "planting" DNA, or someone corrupt mis-identifying it?

Either,

Once people put their trust in this system the possibilities would be endless.

Also another argument,

If I am presumed to be innocent I should not be required to prove my innocence, ie provide dna without reasonable suspicion, ie. evidence.

Also surely the police force would become less capable, solving fewer crimes the hard way, much like the brittish reliance on cctv, if your beaten up maybe they will get caught but if they kill you etc, well you would have prefered an old fashioned bobby on the beat than a camera.

18AD

I don't intend on ever commiting a violent crime. So I don't really see any reason to hand over any DNA.

This sort of stuff inspires paranoia at some level of thinking. ie. everyone is potentially a criminal. However this isn't a legitimate reason to not go ahead with it.

You can't stop pathological people from committing crimes with this kind of thing, imo.

How about people who want it done get it done because they know they're always innocent and people who are against it don't. It would at least narrow down a screening process.

But as said above, framing people would probably become easy enough I'd say.
I'm going to assume high profile criminals with a lot of money will easily find ways around this. Criminals aren't all idiots.

Fuel the conspiracy.
AD.

Potential-Monke

Motosam wrote: »

Governments are inept,

they cant store or control their data,

a mistake will result in an unquestionable guilty verdict,

it will be piss easy to frame someone.

Granted Governments are inept, but outsource it. Give it to the likes of Thompson to store. They're one of the best.

Yes, a mistake can result in a guilty verdict, but it's not going to be a case of "oh we have your DNA you're caught". It will make the investigative process alot easier. You cannot convict someone for doing a crime if there's proof/a very stong alibi that they were nowhere near the place of the crime. The investigation will still go under way, but they'll just have a suspect quicker.

Probably would be easy to frame someone, but again thats what the investigative function would disprove.

biko

It might seem like a good idea now but just wait until I get into power in 10 years time.

The first thing I'll do is sell OPs DNA profile to Hiberinian/VHI/BUPA to screen for latent cancer/diabetes/other genetic defects that will increase the insurance premium. Maybe even make him uninsurable.

Secondly I'll cross reference DNA from the population to find similar traits for all violent criminals. If these traits are found in OPs DNA too I'll make sure he is put on a police list under "warrants extra attention".

Stercus Accidit

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Granted Governments are inept, but outsource it. Give it to the likes of Thompson to store. They're one of the best.

Yes, a mistake can result in a guilty verdict, but it's not going to be a case of "oh we have your DNA you're caught". It will make the investigative process alot easier. You cannot convict someone for doing a crime if there's proof/a very stong alibi that they were nowhere near the place of the crime. The investigation will still go under way, but they'll just have a suspect quicker.

Probably would be easy to frame someone, but again thats what the investigative function would disprove.

Why would they bother, dna is already considered to be infallable.

Jurys are people, fickle, and this would be a very powerful blow against any defence, but thats not the issue, the issue is should the police have your dna on file in the first place when you have done no wrong, you dont need to prove innocence, this is a given, and I argue having to be on file and being accused of being a want to be criminal otherwise is a presumption of guilt.

Stercus Accidit

biko wrote: »

It might seem like a good idea now but just wait until I get into power in 10 years time.

The first thing I'll do is sell OPs DNA profile to Hiberinian/VHI/BUPA to screen for latent cancer/diabetes/other genetic defects that will increase the insurance premium. Maybe even make him uninsurable.

Secondly I'll cross reference DNA from the population to find similar traits for all violent criminals. If these traits are found in OPs DNA too I'll make sure he is put on a police list under "warrants extra attention".

Oo oo, dont forget to purify the human race, now you can even easier than back in 1940's! What do we like, blue eyes? Yeah go for it, hmm this baby may be prone to disease, best cut our losses now...

Lets award jobs and status based on dna, hurra for science! Hurra for the weak of spirit giving up liberties like it was handed to them on a plate.

Potential-Monke

Motosam, if you've no intentions to commit a crime, then aside from just "not wanting" to be profiled, what is the problem. Just ebcause you're on it doens't mean you're presumed a criminal or guilty, it just means you're happy to help in the detection of criminals by more or less saying "hi, i'm motosam, here's my DNA, i'm innocent".

And yes, we ahve liberties, but until the human race can learn to respect each other then maybe the "right to not have your DNA on profile" should not exist...

And just as a matter of interest, do you think that criminals should ahve more rights than you?

Stercus Accidit

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Motosam, if you've no intentions to commit a crime, then aside from just "not wanting" to be profiled, what is the problem. Just ebcause you're on it doens't mean you're presumed a criminal or guilty, it just means you're happy to help in the detection of criminals by more or less saying "hi, i'm motosam, here's my DNA, i'm innocent".

And yes, we ahve liberties, but until the human race can learn to respect each other then maybe the "right to not have your DNA on profile" should not exist...

Or I could say "hi I'm motosam, I'm presumed innocent!" End of story.

The nothing to hide argument has resulted in guantanamo, terrorism laws, murders on tube trains.

Presumption of anything but innocence without due process is very dangerous.

And forcing me to give dna, when I am innocent, a baby, to prevent crime, implies I will commit a crime, and that I am not innocent.

Potential-Monke

I don't understand how people can think that just because you give up DNA that they are presuming guilt. If there was a murder on your street, and just for arguments sake there was a letter saying "someone on this street did it". Immediately, everyone on that street is a suspect. A hair was found at the scene. Would you then turn around and say "no, you can't have my DNA, i'm innocent"? Extreme case, i know, but it gets the point across.

Would it not be easier to give your DNA, or let your child have their DNA taken, and be immediately excluded from the suspect list?

Stercus Accidit

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Would it not be easier to give your DNA, or let your child have their DNA taken, and be immediately excluded from the suspect list?

You could chose to do that, emphasis on choose, but if you were to say no that should be respected.

If you are a suspect and subjected to due process, and a judge deems it that a warrant be made to obtain your dna, thats something.

Dna would not be taken, or at least I hope not, just because you live on the street.

I dont have to prove my innocence, I dont have to provide dna when I am presumed to be innocent, especially without my consent at birth!

OP, please submit your dna to your local garda station, you clearly see the benefits of this act, I will continue to observe the laws of this country, prove that I dont.

People take their freedom and human rights for granted these days, I hope your opinions are not that of the voting masses, because when that happens I will emigrate.

Potential-Monke

Granted, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but please answer this for me, because it's people who think like you who i can never get a straight answer for this question from.

Do you think people who break the law, and seriously break the law, ie: rape, murder, etc, should be entitled to the same rights, and more, than you or me?

biko

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Do you think people who break the law, and seriously break the law, ie: rape, murder, etc, should be entitled to the same rights, and more, than you or me?

I'd say yes to that. Every citizen in a country are entitled to the same rights, and have the same obligations.
If you commit a crime, and are caught, you are punished in accordance with the law. Once you have served your time you are considered a citizen again and once again can enjoy the same rights/obligations as everyone else.

Gran Hermano

OP, not a chance of me willingly donating my DNA or the DNA of my
children. Why should I entrust such private and personal information
to the Irish Government on the off-chance that I or they might commit
a crime. If the legal system requests a DNA sample for a crime already
committed I have no problem providing a sample as long as it is not held
on file after I'm found innocent/guilty.

Why don't you pop down to your local station tomorrow and ask that they
take your fingerprints and a DNA sample on the off-chance that you may
commit a crime - sure it'd help deter you from committing any crime and
should it fail to do so it'll help them with their detection rates.

What if the government decides to release you DNA profile to private companies or universities - albeit in the name of research or the greater
good. What if you DNA profile identifies you for higher life or health
insurance?

Potential-Monke

So you reckon that someone who takes away the human rights of another is entitled then to more rights? You think it's ok that this rapist, who admits to it and there is evidence proving the same, gets off on a technicality, such as a slightly off time in the custody record? Or because he was kept in an interview for 1 minute over the 4 hours allowed?

Would it not be fair to say that those who take the human rights of another should have their own human rights taken off them? Why should they ahve the same, and more, rights after defiling someone. Why should a rapist have the same rights as me? Why should the paedophile have his identity hidden, only to allow him do it again?

Stercus Accidit

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Granted, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but please answer this for me, because it's people who think like you who i can never get a straight answer for this question from.

Do you think people who break the law, and seriously break the law, ie: rape, murder, etc, should be entitled to the same rights, and more, than you or me?

People who think like me?

Think that privacy and the right to not be incriminate myself by not satisfying an unreasonable request(to prove my innocence from birth), is worth something?

OP people who think like you worry me.


And having to play the rapist murderer card is a sign of fail. (nerd lingo)


To answer your question, a "rapist" is entitled to all rights of you or me, up until he is convicted, because until then he is not a rapist, he is innocent, he is you or me.


To original question, thread topic, no I would not submit my childs DNA, they are a child, they are innocent, and if ever they decide to submit their dna when they are older, for whatever reason, it will be by choice.

Karl Hungus

The biggest problem I have with the idea of collecting DNA from everyone is the fact that the police are absolutely inept and uncaring as it is. Would it make a single bit of difference to the situation? Apart from wasting a hell of a lot of money if it didn't work.

biko

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So you reckon that someone who takes away the human rights of another is entitled then to more rights? ... Why should they ahve the same, and more, rights after defiling someone.

You keep saying this. Can you exemplify what these extra rights are?

Potential-Monke

Gran Hermano wrote: »

...as long as it is not held
on file after I'm found innocent/guilty.

Don't worry, it's all destroyed.

Why don't you pop down to your local station tomorrow and ask that they
take your fingerprints and a DNA sample on the off-chance that you may
commit a crime - sure it'd help deter you from committing any crime and
should it fail to do so it'll help them with their detection rates.

I'd do it no problem, because i know that i will not commit a crime. And i wouldn't give it on the "off-chance that i'd commit a crime", i'd give it knowing that i'm innocent, and always will be.

What if the government decides to release you DNA profile to private companies or universities - albeit in the name of research or the greater
good. What if you DNA profile identifies you for higher life or health
insurance?

They couldn't do that without your permission. They have it for crime detection purposes, and not statistical purposes. If they did give it to third party companies and you were then measured on insurance out of the results, you have a case against the state, and you needn't worry about the cost of life assurance after that. The government wouldn't take chances like that, they couldn't afford it.

Potential-Monke

biko wrote: »

You keep saying this. Can you exemplify what these extra rights are?

Sorry, i get carried away with this one. They have more rights than me and over 14,000 other people working here. That right being the right to silence, which i don't have.

Mr. CooL ICE

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So you reckon that someone who takes away the human rights of another is entitled then to more rights? You think it's ok that this rapist, who admits to it and there is evidence proving the same, gets off on a technicality, such as a slightly off time in the custody record? Or because he was kept in an interview for 1 minute over the 4 hours allowed?

Would it not be fair to say that those who take the human rights of another should have their own human rights taken off them? Why should they ahve the same, and more, rights after defiling someone. Why should a rapist have the same rights as me? Why should the paedophile have his identity hidden, only to allow him do it again?

Seriously OP, are you actually reading the replies in this thread? You seem to be misinterpreting everything that Motosam has said. Where does anyone say a rapist deserves or gets more right? Please point this out.


Oh, and no I would not submit my DNA or my future children's DNA. Same reason I don't give out my email address willy nilly. They get into the wrong hands and 'BOOM', I'm ****ed

Mr. CooL ICE

Potential-Monke wrote: »

They couldn't do that without your permission. They have it for crime detection purposes, and not statistical purposes. If they did give it to third party companies and you were then measured on insurance out of the results, you have a case against the state, and you needn't worry about the cost of life assurance after that. The government wouldn't take chances like that, they couldn't afford it.

Again, read what other people have posted. Just because they don't give permission doesn't mean that mistakes can't happen. The government and its departments are full of idiots (gross generalisation i know) and it will take one careless, incompetent person to leak your DNA.

Potential-Monke

LordChessington wrote: »

Seriously OP, are you actually reading the replies in this thread? You seem to be misinterpreting everything that Motosam has said. Where does anyone say a rapist deserves or gets more right? Please point this out.

This is a bone of contention for me, so i do get worked up over it. Which i shouldn't.

Everyday a rapist gets off a conviction because of some small detail. Such things as custody records not being perfectly accurate are getting them off convictions. Human rights are making it harder and harder for the law enforcement to get a conviction. It's no longer a case of them having to be innocent, but more of finding a small detail someone through the invetigative process thats gets them off the conviction.

And this right to silence is a load of bullcrap! Why should you be allowed to say nothing if you're being questioned? Seriously, why? It's not as if those investigating are going to tell the world what you were up to!

biko

You have the right to remain silent until you have spoken to a solicitor. Anything you say can be taken down and used against you in a court of law.

This is the right yeah?
I think it's a good one.

Stercus Accidit

biko wrote: »

You have the right to remain silent until you have spoken to a solicitor. Anything you say can be taken down and used against you in a court of law.

This is the right yeah?
I think it's a good one.

Hmmm, you must hear that alot, get arrested much?

Can I have your dna on file please, id feel more comfortable if you did.


Seriously OP, it is fair that you feel strongly about a topic, and fair to admit it affects your logic, but surely that is an admission that your argument is flawed, as far as I can see, you have not addressed the more valid points against your argument.

Much in the style of those you claim disagreed with you in the classroom.

Mr. CooL ICE

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This is a bone of contention for me, so i do get worked up over it. Which i shouldn't.

Everyday a rapist gets off a conviction because of some small detail. Such things as custody records not being perfectly accurate are getting them off convictions. Human rights are making it harder and harder for the law enforcement to get a conviction. It's no longer a case of them having to be innocent, but more of finding a small detail someone through the invetigative process thats gets them off the conviction.

And this right to silence is a load of bullcrap! Why should you be allowed to say nothing if you're being questioned? Seriously, why? It's not as if those investigating are going to tell the world what you were up to!

But this is down to an incompetent legal system, not a lack of DNA profiling.

What good are you trying to suggest about DNA profiling in terms of crime solving? Someone gets murdered, a strand Johnny's hair is found on the scene and he has no alibi. What happens? Does Johnny get convicted, purely based on this circumstantial evidence? Maybe somebody wanted to frame Johnny and stole some hair from his hairbrush? Who knows?

Mary cries rape. Mikey's semen is found in her vagina. Maybe Mary consented to sex with Mikey, but since he never called her back, she goes psycho and accuses him of rape. Does this mean Mikey gets convicted?

DNA profiling would not improve the justice system. It will have its advantages, but for every advantage there are another 10 ways it can be exploited

Potential-Monke

No, it's "you ahve the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence". Thats the general "caution". What i'm on about is, except for 2/3 certain circumstances (offences against the state i believe), you don't have to say anything while being questioned. You don't ahve to account for your whereabouts, or what you did, etc. And this can't be used in evidence either. The Garda can't say "he didn't say anything, so i think he's hiding something".

Potential-Monke

LordChessington wrote: »

But this is down to an incompetent legal system, not a lack of DNA profiling.

What good are you trying to suggest about DNA profiling in terms of crime solving? Someone gets murdered, a strand Johnny's hair is found on the scene and he has no alibi. What happens? Does Johnny get convicted, purely based on this circumstantial evidence? Maybe somebody wanted to frame Johnny and stole some hair from his hairbrush? Who knows?

The investigation wouldn't stop the minute a bit of hair was found.

Mary cries rape. Mikey's semen is found in her vagina. Maybe Mary consented to sex with Mikey, but since he never called her back, she goes psycho and accuses him of rape. Does this mean Mikey gets convicted?

This already happens, a woman cries rape and it's extremly hard for the man to prove otherwise as it is.

Mr. CooL ICE

Then exactly what advantages would DNA profiling bring about?

Mr.Micro

The authorities cannot be trusted to safeguard any DNA database and as we have seen in cases recently it was relied upon too much to the the detriment of other evidence. It was mooted as virtually infallible at one time.

thetaxman

Not a chance would my child be submitted to DNA or biometrics.

EamonnKeane

Potential-Monke wrote: »

And this right to silence is a load of bullcrap! Why should you be allowed to say nothing if you're being questioned? Seriously, why? It's not as if those investigating are going to tell the world what you were up to!

So what would you propose? A suspect who decides to keep his mouth shut should be beaten until he speaks? That's reasonable, after all the gardai only arrest guilty people anyway.

orestes

I hate the whole "if you aren't gonna commit a crime it shouldn't bother you" mentality.

Imagine a cop showed up at your door and said he's gonna come in and have a look around, no warrant or reason to suspect you for having a crime or anything, he just feels like it. And while he's in your house he's gonna leave a few cameras and sound recorders around too. Hey, if you have nothing to hide why should it bother you?

Nah, I can't say I agree with the whole dna profiling thing.

Pretty much everything you have suggested in this thread is a violation not of human rights op, but civil rights. Innocent till proven guilty, you don't have to incriminate yourself, do the crime and then do the time and after that you can rejoin society with your debt paid. These have nothing to do with the court and sentencing part of the law, they are civil rights for all citizens.

Ah screw it! Gattaca! Gattaca! 2+2=5! I love Big Brother! Death to Eurasia!

Rovi

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

thetaxman

This statement needs to be applied to many other areas as well.

Hrududu

Everyday a rapist gets off a conviction because of some small detail. Such things as custody records not being perfectly accurate are getting them off convictions.

So if the guards can't keep their custody records accurate what makes you think they would keep your DNA information safe?

stevenmu

There's a lot of great arguments against a DNA database here, and I agree with every single one.

What it really comes down to IMHO is power and who holds it. In a democratic free society power should be held by the people. A government should be afraid of it's people, not the other way around. But a DNA database, along with compulsory ID and all that other nonsense is putting the power in the governments hands. It inherently makes us subservient to the state and requires us to prove our innocence, to prove we have a right to be walking around free minding our own business.

Imagine a situation where every time someone protests against the government, their DNA gets found at a murder scene, or every time someone leaks something that embarrasses the government their DNA turns up at a bank robbery.

Think it won't ever happen? It happens in other countries all the time (maybe not specifically using DNA, but it happens). Have the gardaí here never stitched anyone up? Are none of our politicians corrupt?

The only reason it doesn't happen here, yet, is because enough people out there are very vigiliant about this kind of thing. And then tools aren't in place yet to bypass them.

minidazzler

I PICK A

I dont see why Not because I dont want to commit crimes and I feel all crimes should be punished so Yes DNA should be taken.

stevenmu

If you're not going to commit crimes then why would they need your DNA? I agree crimes should be punished but if you didn't commit the crime how is having your DNA going to help?

minidazzler

stevenmu wrote: »

If you're not going to commit crimes then why would they need your DNA? I agree crimes should be punished but if you didn't commit the crime how is having your DNA going to help?

What I said was I don
't WANT to commit crimes. Accidents Happen. I could accidentally Kill someone easily.

Kold

God no. My genetic make up is no business of any government. This could get so out of hand. The fact is, what kind of crime would this help with? Is crime so bad these days that this is in any way necessary?

Using social fear the US government has been able to put the Patriot Act into motion actually reducing the individual rights of every citizen. B*llocks. People get killed, people get raped. Unfortunately those are the collateral effect of free will. This "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" mentality actually disgusts me. It's acceptance that your government knows best for you. This government? Give me a break. If me buying drugs sponsors violent crime then that's their fault, I'm not in the business of making things easier for them.


No Orwellian future for me k thx.

thetaxman

Crime is not the real reason behind these activities. Look at the US where a lot of school children are having their DNA taken as children. Are they criminals?

Stercus Accidit

minidazzler wrote: »

I could accidentally Kill someone easily.

Only if you are let out of your padded cell.

buckieburd

Your DNA should only be stored if you have already comitted a crime

AngryBadger

I don't think I'd support something like this, because

1) DNA "fingerprinting" is not 100% accurate.

2) I don't see the advantage of having everyone's DNA on file form a criminal detection standpoint.
-First off you're assuming DNA can be retrieved from the scene, which is not always the case. Erego your database is now redundant.
-If you manage to obtain DNA from the scene, you still need to narrow the owner down. You can't expect to just run it against an entire database of DNA fro every single person in the country/world, that could potentially take a completely unrealistic length of time. Erego your database is redundant.
-As it stands when a crime is committed, if material is recovered for DNA analysis, that material still needs a "suspect" sample to be run aginst. So the investigating officers need still need to identify potential suspects. Only then can the DNA be compared (see my previous point). In the case where someone is not guilty, then all they have to do is volunteer a tissue sample to be cleared. If someone is guilty presumable they would be unwilling to volunteer a sample, but you still have to identify them as a suspect anyway, and if you can do that you can arrest them and sample away to your hearts content (I may be a little in the grey on this point :P). So my point is that even with a national/international database convictions are still dependent on the investigating officer(s) ability to identify a suspect.

3) If people are willing to co-operate with the current system to the best of their ability then I beleive that system is more than sufficiently robust to catch criminals. However, that co-operation is often lacking, as are the resources needed to compelte investigations in many cases. As well as any number of other problems, none of which would be fixed by a "DNA database".

TO be honest, and please don't take offence at this, but I think the concept of a "DNA database" is the sort of gullible notion that governments and lobby groups trot out when they need something big and sensational to grab the publics attention. I honestly don't think there's any real advantage to it.

Treora

I guess tailoring a virus to an individual's DNA would make political or corporate assassinations quite simple. It would take all the work out of making it look like heart attack, what with no nasty residual poisons left only a naturally occuring virus.

AngryBadger

Treora wrote: »

I guess tailoring a virus to an individual's DNA would make political or corporate assassinations quite simple. It would take all the work out of making it look like heart attack, what with no nasty residual poisons left only a naturally occuring virus.

....and you're basing this on what?