Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

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

12346

Comments



  • Fuck no




  • 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??

    This is a rubbish argument, it presumes that the State always has the best intention at heart. It is not that outlandish to think that if the State have such information that they cannot abuse it at any time.

    Something inside of me thinks that it is a step too far.




  • bluewolf wrote: »
    And if the data gets leaked, as it always does? Wouldn't we all be happy to see our health ins going up because they examined our dna?
    EU law means that insurance companies can't discriminate based on genetics

    DNA sequencers mean that you can produce someones DNA once you have the sequence, big brother stuff.




  • Daegerty wrote: »
    Why should you have to give a sample just for being arrested. Anyone can get arrested and not have done anything wrong

    Destroyed within a few years? The government destroys nothing. If anything it will get moved to the repository for 'destroyed' DNA samples and brought back again if ever needed

    and what difference would it make to you if they stored it into the future - if your a law abiding citizen it should never have to be brought back no??




  • AaronEnnis wrote: »
    I believe the database in question involves a DNA profile obtained from 8/11/13 specific regions of DNA, used for matching profiles to one another mainly in criminal cases - I dont think the Gardaí would have much use for disease markers. You may be thinking of genome sequencing.

    In any case, a database like this would have huge implications for juries in understanding the whole process of DNA profiling, i.e. 'what can it prove'. Also, the potential for 'planting' DNA samples at a crime scene, or finding a false match in the lab, and conveniently arriving at a match for someone with previous convictions has to be considered, however unlikely the circumstances. This was the main concern a few years ago when the talks of this database last resurfaced.

    I expect the Jim Corr fanatics to be out in full force on this thread, so that's all Im going to say on it.

    I think what you have highlighted above would be the concern of most people considering this with their sensible head on. If, however, the right safeguards are in place, i.e. the necessity for corroborating evidence, as in the past DNA alone has secured convictions, it's such a powerful tool that surely we have to introduce it.


  • Advertisement


  • There should be national Dana database for inadequate singers.




  • johnmcdnl wrote: »
    and what difference would it make to you if they stored it into the future - if your a law abiding citizen it should never have to be brought back no??

    The law gets more pervasive every day, what's allowed today might not be tomorrow and since the law is so complex I doubt you will find many law abiding citizens you can't dig something up on.

    and besides DNA can be used to frame you.




  • Jakkass wrote: »
    This is a rubbish argument, it presumes that the State always has the best intention at heart. It is not that outlandish to think that if the State have such information that they cannot abuse it at any time.

    Something inside of me thinks that it is a step too far.
    This argument, that government/police/authorities could abuse or misuse data collected on it's citizens, seems to have an obvious flaw to me.

    Yes, of course abuse is possible, just as realms of data which is already collected on us by both government and non-government agencies ( e.g. Census data or the personal info now almost inevitably recorded for all but the must mundane of commercial transactions) could be misused.

    If data on citizens is bad, then surely logically we should prohibit any data collection, even if the cost is extensive inconvenience or inefficiencies? It is not more sensible to acknowledge the benefits of having such databases but address the risks by having rigidly enforced data protection legislation?




  • lugha wrote: »
    This argument, that government/police/authorities could abuse or misuse data collected on it's citizens, seems to have an obvious flaw to me.

    Yes, of course abuse is possible, just as realms of data which is already collected on us by both government and non-government agencies ( e.g. Census data or the personal info now almost inevitably recorded for all but the must mundane of commercial transactions) could be misused.

    If data on citizens is bad, then surely logically we should prohibit any data collection, even if the cost is extensive inconvenience or inefficiencies? It is not more sensible to acknowledge the benefits of having such databases but address the risks by having rigidly enforced data protection legislation?


    Correct and anyone who ever applied for a Mortgage, Bank loan etc has already given away plenty of information.
    Why do people think that the information can be used in a bad way ? Examples please of how this happened in the past.




  • Bosco boy wrote: »
    Law biding people have nothing to fear, why protect criminals and perverts?


    The focus should be on protecting law abiding people from potential miscarriages of justice, that's one of the main reasons we have a judicial system which operates on the "innocent until proven guilty". For any doubters, I have one word. McBrearty.

    It's worth remembering that DNA evidence is a) pretty hard to collect without contamination
    b) not a 100% proof of guilt.

    Too many people watch CSI and think DNA is the solution to everything.

    I don't have an issue with people convicted of serious crimes being registered (for a period of time subsuquent with their sentencing/parole terms), but a national DNA database is unnecessary and far too open to corruption.


  • Advertisement


  • Anyone convicted of a crime should have their DNA data held. As they are more likely than the rest of the population to be reoffenders, I don't see the issue.

    My biggest worry, as other posters have alluded to, is not the idea of such a database; but the Irish ability to protect it. The Irish government does not inspire confidence from past major IT projects in its ability to do it right.




  • Biggins wrote: »
    ...Which is why I suspect the use of DNA on its own will not be allowed just to be used to convict anyone in most cases (we will have to wait and see).
    Collaborating evidence such as witness statements, alibis, examination of clothing and many other factors will come into play.

    Your entitled to vote "no" (if there is a vote, I suspect there will not be but could be wrong) put please do so having a full awareness of the legal process, how its carried out and further proposed regulations and safeguards.
    Thats all. :)

    First off: Anyone who is convicted of a serious offense deserves the above happening to them.

    Secondly: It has been proven that secondary and tertiary transfer of DNA can take place. Considering the sensitivity of modern DNA analysis techniques, we will all have to acknowledge that there will always be a possibility of anyones DNA being present in a crime scene (in any particular quantity).

    The impact of collecting everyones DNA will not just stop at the database being created. The follow on actions will also include:

    1.
    The number of time that your DNA gets highlighted in any investigation (without you knowing about it) will be held and updated. This will be added to the other "soft information" stored by the government.

    As a result, it almost definitely used in conjunction with the current vetting system for anyone working with kids (a necessary system by the way). Anyone could then be automatically excluded from any activity associated with kids (teaching, sporting/coaching charity work etc.). It would take a freedom of information request to find out that you have been automatically blacklisted.

    See also point 3 below.

    2.
    GUARD: Dear Biggins, a match for your DNA profile was found at a crime scene. The crime was sufficiently serious that we need you to answer some questions now. You can of course bring a solicitor if you want.

    BIGGINS: Actually I'm going away on holidays today. Can it wait until I get back?

    GUARD: No.

    3. (THIS IS MY PERSONAL SPECULATION) General employers will be able to pay a fee and see if your DNA profile has appeared anywhere. Given the state of the public finances I wouldn't put it past them (of course there would be safeguards etc.), or else we would allow the pharma sector access to the info (aggregate only, not individual stats) for trials here.




  • At the end of the day, more DNA related facilities/abilities are going to be used sooner or later in our country.
    Thats the absolute reality. The question is not "IF!" - but "WHEN?" ...and if some finally admit that truth which IS oncoming, the real question that we should be concentrating on is what are the best safeguards that will work (note I did not say "perfect") when this next stage of progression of crime fighting, will inevitably happen.




  • Correct and anyone who ever applied for a Mortgage, Bank loan etc has already given away plenty of information.
    Why do people think that the information can be used in a bad way ? Examples please of how this happened in the past.
    I think the raw census data could be very useful to those with a mischievous bent. You could ascertain that an old person was living alone in a rural area or identify homes of high earners. Or if you like to play in the senior league, you could even identify the homes of senior bank officials or other high value targets.




  • Take everybody's DNA and store in a big Database (Oracle RAC none of that Mysql ****e) then all you need to do to frame someone is a place a sample of their DNA at a crime scene.




  • laugh wrote: »
    Take everybody's DNA and store in a big Database (Oracle RAC none of that Mysql ****e) then all you need to do to frame someone is a place a sample of their DNA at a crime scene.

    How is that any different from the way it is now?




  • Wrong. A good friend of mine has made a good living out of destroying Government files. The have to destroy records after a given time, sometimes 5 years, sometimes 7.

    Don't think that anything they want to hold on to isn't backed up elsewhere




  • 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??

    That view can easily run you into problems down the road.




  • It would be interesting to see what the true levels of non-paternity are if that would be possible.



  • Advertisement


  • Having a DNA database seems natural to me. If it makes it easier to find people who have committed a murder or serious crime then I'm not bothered. I mean, I'm not a criminal and have nothing to hide so it's not going to affect me in the slightest.





  • genuinly interested to know what people think the irish gov can do with a sample of dna that would harm them ?

    i mean in reality they arent even capable of maintaining a simple data base never mind creating a scenario where its used to frame them for a crime ?


    i know what the positives are but the negatives seem to feeling vaguely uneasy about the state having a useful record of them ?

    what are the specific concerns ?





  • A lot of people gave their phone numbers to facebook thinking "sure what's the harm if facebook has my number". Now their numbers are available to every creep and spammer out there thanks to facebook's lax security.

    The idea of a dna database sounds great when one knows nothing about what happens to data in the real world and thinks that a dna database won't be leaked, sold, hacked or shared. It must be nice to live in such a world - one where politicians are never corrupt, where managers are never incompetent and workers aren't stupid.

    Now, I can hear already hear the responses - "sure what could a bad actor do with my dna? I'm not good at thinking.". Well, that's a lesson that's not worth teaching until people grasp the points that I made before that.





  • If say a taxi driver was stabbed and killed for his takings by some junkie...

    they pull every bit of DNA from the car they find his, mine as well as the DNA of X number of people that have been in the car for say the week or whatever...

    i don’t fancy having to be invited to a Garda station either by appointment or by force and start having to prove my story of how I got to be in that car, where I was going, for what purpose....basically prove my innocence even though I am innocent I was simply getting a taxi to the dentist...I’m not there to be inconvenienced to make their job slightly easier..

    your DNA is yours, you shouldn’t need to give it to anybody... unless you actually commit a violent crime.

    if the government(s) want to tackle crime they need to sort out these absolute wankbag judges, who are handing down suspended sentences for repeat offenses and violent offenders. Without a deterrent crime will flourish. No point in having DNA to ease capture/detection if nobody does fûck all in terms of hurting criminals.





  • is the argument between definite good , ie identifying deceased bodies solving violent and sexual crimes vs potential or possible but non specific bad ?

    is there cases were dna has been used against some one in such circumstances ? its possible , especially in the US but i dont know of any

    i didnt give my number to facebook either and still got a ball of those spam calls





  • take a breath there strumms


    if your dna was found at the scene of a murder of course your a suspect , same of the person who actually committed the crime , its hardly about making the life of and investigator easier , its about justice for a victim , the basis of any justice system really ?

    you were in the car going to the dentist , grand job mr strumms , lets just confirm that with the dentist and verify where you were at the time of the murders. thank you kindly now your off the list of possible suspects and one step closer to finding a violent criminal and getting justice for the victim ?

    List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch - Wikipedia

    your slight inconvenience being more important than justice for victims and protection of the rest of the population meeh i know which id choose ,





  • It’s not just about justice for the victims, it’s also about justice for the innocent, plenty of people have been convicted of crimes they never committed...i am still entirely entitled to privacy. To go about my business without any dna record of my movement, or that dna being available to any third party.

    if I was a suspect in a crime , I get arrested, I’m under zero obligation to tell the Gardai anything. There is also a constitutional guarantee, that every person accused of a criminal offence in Ireland is innocent until proven guilty. When you are charged by the Gardaí with a criminal offence, the responsibility of proving your guilt lies with the prosecution. Therefore, no responsibility lies with you, the accused, to prove your innocence... therefore I’ll keep my DNA off record.





  • your sort of right , but only sort of ,


    Right to silence in criminal cases (citizensinformation.ie)

    my point is that you justice for the victim of a crime and their family supersedes your right not to be sightly inconvenienced, that's just common humanity.

    how about if having your dna cleared a innocent person. ie Yorkshire ripper case

    there is data held about you in many places for many reasons. when you go into a pub now do you refuse to give your name and phone number if asked for contact tracing ?

    So if you could provide simply verified information that places you in another place at the time of a crime you would maintain your right to silence. ? and waste the time of investigators following up something that you knew was a dead end ?





  • but they wouldn't have your DNA to compare it to unless you had previously committed a serious offence.



  • Advertisement


  • No, nobody’s rights are more important. Because somebody say gets assaulted that doesn’t mean their rights trump mine..

    there is data held about me in multiple places, which I agree to and is ok under acts of legislation...

    i haven’t been inside a pub since covid so have not provided any information... only outdoor dining and for that it’s not required..



Advertisement