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

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??

There should be national Dana database for inadequate singers.

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?

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.

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.

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

The need to serve justice should never override the public's right to privacy. If it was mandated the police could raid your home at any hour of the day or night and without a warrant under the pretense that they are searching for child pornography would you be ok with that? Because that's pretty much what you are doing, i.e. acquiescing to governmental intrusion for whatever reason. How about you give me all your passwords, email, FB etc., access to your WhatsApp messages and your online bank accounts. I just want to have a look. You've nothing to hide, right?