Child DNA Profiling... Or 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?

mayhem#

Can you please elaborate on what you would consider "a crime" and can you guarantee that this definition will apply for an infinite period int the future?

E.

Treora

AngryBadger wrote: »

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

I forgot to add at the end of the comment