Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Is it right to have a national DNA database to tackle crime?

12357

Comments



  • ...many people will die because of reduced funding for health and policing because of the banking crisis those who broke the law and the spirit of the law won't get prosecuted :mad:

    I hear what your saying and I agree totally that all is still not fair.
    However the best we can do is at least try and further introduce more tools which might cut down in time, resources and innocent people becoming victims.
    ..And if something don't work and its exposed as such, as a relative still free country, we have the right to protest and do something about it.
    It boils down to the fact that we have to try.

    Not to try at all, would be a greater mistake I feel.




  • Biggins wrote: »
    Everything on this earth is a risk or danger to an individual.
    The best one can do is keep your nose clean, stay off the radar of the Gardi and crime units.
    If not, what can you expect or deserve!
    I was beaten up on my 18th birthday whilst going to the hospital to see a stupid friend of mine who drank too much, on the way to see him I realised I had lost my wallet, and in a stupid moment, i made the futile decision to go back and look for it. I was beaten up by a guy I used to go to school with, I didn't know him very well but I was happy (as it was my birthday) and decided to say hello to him, He was drunk with is mates and decided to start on me as I was on my own with nobody around, him and his mates broke the top of my jaw and knocked a tooth out. I went to the police about it.

    The guy who did it got a load of his bouncer friends to say that I started his sister in a nearby pub which I had never even been to and because I was on my own I didn't have an alibi and had to drop the charges, if DNA laws were in place and he decided to be a bigger d1ckhead than he already was and taken it further, My DNA would have ended up on record.

    but by your standards that would be no more than I deserved...
    Biggins wrote: »
    Really? Seriously?
    Are you that blind you didn't see the previous links I provided?
    One of the most stupidest statements I've seen this morning so far.
    68% of statistics are bull****, there I pulled a statistic out of my ass too. who are you to take second-hand information and make it gospel truth without having carried out statistical analysis on the data set yourself? and as someone already pointed out, the larger the data set the larger the chance of someone getting the finger pointed at them by accident.
    Biggins wrote: »
    ...On the extreme rare occassion and whats more with NO DNA evidence to back the innocent person up!
    YES, DNA can actually prove INNOCENCE as well as guilt but hey, lets all thrown reason out the window and speed over that equal fact in order to portray an argument of there might be widescale corruption and the Gardi is all out to get you and everyone!
    ...More stupidity and lack of foresight!
    I know this already but DNA evidence doesn't have to be on record to prove someone's innocence.

    You are acting like I don't agree with DNA evidence.....


    I could think of a way to frame someone, you'd need a combination of surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, and DNA on a database.

    The night of a murder, someone who has a criminal record runs past a surveillance camera perhaps he's just out for a run, he's on his own, no alibi, his name is recognised by facial recognition software, someone need only have access to this sort of technology to be able to misuse it, coupled with having DNA on record it's a recipe for disaster.

    Now lets see, what we have here, surveillance cameras? check. Facial recognition software? check. now all we need is DNA evidence on record, and anyone who has access to the system with a little thought could frame anyone.

    You really think if I could think of a way to frame someone, that people much smarter than me won't actually go ahead and do it?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Planting evidence is ALWAYS possible but as hinted to above, with DNA, even that is now MUCH, MUCH harder given the variables of alibis, other evidence, etc that can equally swing in the direction of an innocents direction!
    ...But hey, lets skip over that too to portray the impression also that only DNA proves guilt! :rolleyes:
    Now who's making assumptions about the meaning of peoples words, I agree with DNA evidence, but if someone is accused based on fact first, then DNA should taken, the problem arises when DNA is already in a Database... then what?

    You still didn't answer the question, what would you personally think if it came to light that someone had spent 60 years in jail, (or worse in other countries) because they were framed by stored DNA evidence, or the DNA evidence was mixed up?




  • Are you under some naive assumption that the current judicial system is foolproof or something? Mistakes happen, it's a fact of life, sorry to break it to you.
    Are you trying to wind me up? or did you just not see that I already said I don't trust the government. I would have thought that it clearly already meant that I feel the judicial system is flawed also.

    Let me get this straight, you agree with me that the judicial system isn't foolproof, yet you still want to hand the government more power?

    The word foolish comes to mind, sorry to break it to you.




  • ...if DNA laws were in place and he decided to be a bigger d1ckhead than he already was and taken it further, My DNA would have ended up on record...
    BUT!!!
    Were you charge with anything?
    Was there enough doubt that the legal authorities let the case go?
    You walked - and by the way, we don't know yet to what lever of crime collection of DNA will happen so its still impossible to say that your DNA would have been taken.
    68% of statistics are bull****, there I pulled a statistic out of my ass too.
    Seems to be a trend with you!
    ...who are you to take second-hand information and make it gospel truth without having carried out statistical analysis on the data set yourself?
    I didn't but once agin your trying to infer something!
    A GOOD number of people have separately come up with the same approximate figures - but hey, don't let fact come in the way of a good rant!
    ..I could think of a way to frame someone, you'd need a combination of surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, and DNA on a database.

    The night of a murder, someone who has a criminal record runs past a surveillance camera perhaps he's just out for a run, he's on his own, no alibi, his name is recognised by facial recognition software, someone need only have access to this sort of technology to be able to misuse it, coupled with having DNA on record it's a recipe for disaster.

    Now lets see, what we have here, surveillance cameras? check. Facial recognition software? check. now all we need is DNA evidence on record, and anyone who has access to the system with a little thought could frame anyone.

    I think your bordering on pananoira here and you think a whole system is going to be used, by people at all levels because they just want to get you!
    Talk about a serious stretch of the imagination and frankly self-indulgent to make yourself out to be that important!
    A threat to international security are we?
    ...You still didn't answer the question, what would you personally think if it came to light that someone had spent 60 years in jail, (or worse in other countries) because they were framed by stored DNA evidence, or the DNA evidence was mixed up?

    I can't answer a question you didn't ask of me! You might have put it to someone else!
    ...However I will reply to your question here:
    What do I think? It think it would be an absolute disgrace and that those responsible should be without question, be held accountable.
    What I am not going to do is throw "the baby out with the bath water" and ditch the whole system.
    I might re-enforce it with better methods and learn from such unfortunate errors.

    ...O' and by the way, there has been many cases now reported in the media around the world where DNA has actually proved the innocence of people in jail - not sent them there!
    Go figure!




  • Daegerty wrote: »
    No. Huge invasion of privacy. Very big brother / minority report like.

    The DPP has already used DNA evidence in court in this country. They used the UK's database which had DNA evidence on file for a criminal being prosecuted in Ireland. That a supposedly modern police force doesn't have a DNA database or even the ability to gather, store and process DNA for evidence is pathetic. This shouldn't even be a question. We have a fingerprint database. We have a database of various types of information whether that be photographic, DOB, addresses, phone numbers etc. All of which points back to individuals - as does DNA.


  • Advertisement


  • The DPP has already used DNA evidence in court in this country. They used the UK's database which had DNA evidence on file for a criminal being prosecuted in Ireland. That a supposedly modern police force doesn't have a DNA database or even the ability to gather, store and process DNA for evidence is pathetic. This shouldn't even be a question. We have a fingerprint database. We have a database of various types of information whether that be photographic, DOB, addresses, phone numbers etc. All of which points back to individuals - as does DNA.
    Indeed. Its just one more tool in the toolbox.
    Its up to us then to see how its used and whos using it.




  • The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.




  • The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.

    I would be against the storing of everyone's DNA from birth.
    I would be for the storing of DNA for serious convicted criminals and/or consistently habitual ones.




  • The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.
    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the latter either.. Fuk it. What can they do with my DNA except convict me of a crime I committed.




  • no , this is entirely wrong in every way , i even hate going to the US as they take your fingerprint. I think if you had to bring it in the dna evidence should only be taken upon conviction of a violent / sex crime and if your conviction is overturned then the information deleted

    dna data on any person should not be taken in any other circumstance


  • Advertisement


  • No. Next thing you know and it will be introduced for non criminals. Then what? You must have a certain gene profile or no insurance? **** that. The abuse potential is too great. DNA samples are just wrong. No question.




  • If it's for convincted criminals yes. For everyone else no.




  • Naikon wrote: »
    ...The abuse potential is too great.
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where it has even been proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.




  • Look at what banks and other institutions do with our personal financial information.




  • Biggins wrote: »
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where is has even proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.

    The problem is once your very genetic makeup is exposed, any genetic indications present in that sample could be potentially used to discriminate people. Imagine trying to get a job working in a bank where the "agression" gene is outlawed. The abuse potential is pretty high. Whatever can be said about criminal profiling, if this concept ever spills over into civil life, you can count me out.




  • Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Look at what banks and other institutions do with our personal financial information.
    Thats private enterprise and yes, you have a point but the Gardi are not out to make profits.
    I get to what you alluding though.




  • Biggins wrote: »
    Thats private enterprise and yes, you have a point but the Gardi are not out to make profits.

    have ye seen traffic core lately ?




  • Biggins wrote: »
    BUT!!!
    Were you charge with anything?
    Was there enough doubt that the legal authorities let the case go?
    You walked - and by the way, we don't know yet to what lever of crime collection of DNA will happen so its still impossible to say that your DNA would have been taken.
    No, I wasn't charged with anything, but I was advised by the police that the evidence wasn't in my favour. my point is, false evidence was used against me by someone who wasn't even in the system. imagine what could be done by someone who was part of the system?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Seems to be a trend with you!
    You're the one who quoted statistics, people can use statistics to prove anything they want.
    Biggins wrote: »
    I didn't but once agin your trying to infer something!
    A GOOD number of people have separately come up with the same approximate figures - but hey, don't let fact come in the way of a good rant!
    I didn't even look at your links, I have just looked, and I came across this (which was my first thought when you mentioned odds...) and there are probably a lot more variables that come in to play with a bigger database. a statistic is a condensed model of data to try to predict trends, and is not a model of truth.
    But he adds, "Unfortunately, a simple mathematical analysis will not give the true picture. Two factors will increase the probability of adventitious matches: firstly, the condition of crime scene samples may lead to incomplete profiles; and secondly, individuals who are related are more likely to share the same profile than unrelated individuals."
    Biggins wrote: »
    I think your bordering on pananoira here and you think a whole system is going to be used, by people at all levels because they just want to get you!
    Talk about a serious stretch of the imagination and frankly self-indulgent to make yourself out to be that important!
    A threat to international security are we?
    lol, do you think I'm stupid? in reality this will probably never affect me, but it will affect someone.

    What if someone makes a law that does effect me, or you for that matter, and wants our DNA for that?

    I'd rather not be part of a system that is as capable of putting innocent people in prison as it is murderers. and what if the government does become tyrannical? How are you so sure that this will never happen again? we've already given up so much power to the European union ( I agree with the European union by the way, I'm not a xenophobe) but I believe all power should have its limits.
    Biggins wrote: »
    I can't answer a question you didn't ask of me! You might have put it to someone else!
    ...However I will reply to your question here:
    What do I think? It think it would be an absolute disgrace and that those responsible should be without question, be held accountable.
    What I am not going to do is throw "the baby out with the bath water" and ditch the whole system.
    I might re-enforce it with better methods and learn from such unfortunate errors.
    Both of you dodged the question of purposefully planting evidence. do you think that it's just not possible?
    If it happened what would you think? would it be OK with you?
    I did once in a roundabout way, and the second time for definite.

    Thanks for answering this time, but I'm not suggesting we do throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm suggesting we don't use a database to store DNA evidence on, I agree with using DNA evidence. it's obviously the most powerful tool ever discovered for crime investigation, but, I am always reminded of this Benjamin franklin quote, "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    Sure, you might enforce better methods, but you wouldn't be in control. that's my point.

    In my opinion we are giving up liberty like its nothing. did we learn nothing about man and his obvious wanton abuse of power over the last few thousand years? you act like it's only something that happens in 3rd world countries, it happens all over the place, people with power have and will eventually abuse their power if we give it to them.
    Biggins wrote: »
    ...O' and by the way, there has been many cases now reported in the media around the world where DNA has actually proved the innocence of people in jail - not sent them there!
    Go figure!
    Yes, and DNA evidence can just as easily be used to prove innocence without being on a database, go figure!




  • have ye seen traffic core lately ?

    A garda gets paid the same wether he gives one ticket or one hundred




  • Naikon wrote: »
    The problem is once your very genetic makeup is exposed, any genetic indications present in that sample could be potentially used to discriminate people. Imagine trying to get a job working in a bank where the "agression" gene is outlawed. The abuse potential is pretty high. Whatever can be said about criminal profiling, if this concept ever spills over into civil life, you can count me out.

    I will try find some evidence to back up what I am saying in the meantime...
    Fair enough but I don't think we are at the levels of "Gattaca" yet.
    Thats a long, LONG way off and many safeguards can be equally dreamed up of in the meanwhile.


  • Advertisement


  • Biggins wrote: »
    Fair enough but I don't think we are at the levels of "Gattaca" yet.
    Thats a long, LONG way off and many safeguards can be equally dreamed up of in the meanwhile.

    True enough. It's a long way off but the risk is always there. If criminal DNA profiling can be proven to reduce crime for instance, you could have a situation where some asshat in power declares "it's a good thing" thus signing a bill into law which allows companies to potentially abuse genetic information.

    Not to say it could not happen without Criminal profiling, but the extra momentum could work in their favour. IE - An insurance company could charge paddy 10x what Mary has to pay, simply because the "risk auditors" decide people with whatever interesting gene paddy has is "shown" to be bad.




  • No, I wasn't charged with anything, but I was advised by the police that the evidence wasn't in my favour. my point is, false evidence was used against me by someone who wasn't even in the system. imagine what could be done by someone who was part of the system?
    You mean by someone that was already in the system and making a claim against you?
    Which would mean that they were a criminal already - and if so, who's words are Gardi naturally going to have more immediate faith in?
    Yours, who so far has a clean record or a criminal with a record bad enough that he/she is on a DNA database?
    ...And regarding your case, there also was not enough evidence either to proceed against you too!

    ...But we're getting off topic.

    We will just have to agree, to disagree.




  • Naikon wrote: »
    True enough. It's a long way off but the risk is always there. If criminal DNA profiling can be proven to reduce crime for instance, you could have a situation where some asshat in power declares "it's a good thing" thus signing a bill into law which allows companies to potentially abuse genetic information.

    Not to say it could not happen without Criminal profiling, but the extra momentum could work in their favour. IE - An insurance company could charge paddy 10x what Mary has to pay, simply because the "risk auditors" decide people with whatever interesting gene paddy has is "shown" to be bad.
    Its us to us then to inherently work for the greater good and with the best safeguards possible.
    They won't be perfect but for a greater good, we should at least strive towards them for trying to see more successful results - and that can only be a good thing in the long run when it comes to public safety and security.




  • Biggins wrote: »
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where it has even been proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.

    I guess the issue is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. A few decades from now, it is likely that a huge amount of information will be obtainable from your DNA cheaply and easily. Some of this information will probably be pretty sensitive. The fact is that we don't know what's in there, at least not completely. It's not really a matter of what has happened, it's a matter of what could happen.




  • Fremen wrote: »
    ...It's not really a matter of what has happened, it's a matter of what could happen.
    Again, another good point made but I would also say that just because we fear something, don't mean we should also back away from it.
    We can take precautions, and if need be again and again take more and more as the occasion arises.
    If we feared every future step and did nothing, we'd still be back in the Stone Age!




  • Biggins wrote: »
    Its us to us then to inherently work for the greater good and with the best safeguards possible.
    They won't be perfect but for a greater good, we should at least strive towards them for trying to see more successful results - and that can only be a good thing in the long run when it comes to public safety and security.

    For ordinary citizens, I agree 100% For massive faceless corporations though, no. These corporations have very close ties with governments(especially in the US). You just can't trust an entity of substantial size to be ethical all the time.

    IBM is a good example *I am not trying to sell this book, nor do I have any affiliation, it's just a good investigative analysis into the whole mess*




  • Naikon wrote: »
    For ordinary citizens, I agree 100% For massive faceless corporations though, no. These corporations have very close ties with governments(especially in the US). You just can't trust an entity of substantial size to be ethical all the time.

    If that's the case won't the government backed faceless corporations just buy up Peter Marks and the like and then collect your hair and match it to the photos of your face that they take with the hidden cameras behind the mirrors and use facial recognition to match them to the security footage from ATMs they buy from the banks to get your name and then secretly genetically profile you in anyway?




  • strobe wrote: »
    If that's the case won't the government backed faceless corporations just buy up Peter Marks and the like and then collect your hair and match it to the photos of your face that they take with the hidden cameras behind the mirrors and use facial recognition to match them to the security footage from ATMs they buy from the banks to get your name and then secretly genetically profile you in anyway?

    Practically anything is possible given enough money and influence. Meh, paranoia is better than blind faith I guess.




  • I'd go even further and have it so that anyone that is arrested has their DNA taken and held on file. If you've nothing to hide what's the problem??

    lol


  • Advertisement


  • Biggins wrote: »
    Again, another good point made but I would also say that just because we fear something, don't mean we should also back away from it.
    We can take precautions, and if need be again and again take more and more as the occasion arises.
    If we feared every future step and did nothing, we'd still be back in the Stone Age!

    Indeed. Every new system, every change in the way things are done is open to being abused. You cannot demand an infallible system of any kind because it just isn't humanly possible imo.

    People will always find ways and means of beating the system. The best anyone can do is try to stay a step ahead as much as is possible.

    If we shied away from every change, every new method then nothing would ever change.


Advertisement