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

The "What's the problem if you have nothing to hide?" argument falls apart pretty quickly once the government starts making laws you don't agree with.

The reason innocent people would have a problem with this clear invasion of privacy is because we don't want an invasive government; invasive government is incredibly dangerous and giving the government too much information about yourself is incredibly dangerous, as the Nazi party so kindly demonstrated to us over half a century ago.

It usually starts with things like this - it's how it started in America, anyway, though not with DNA but rather free speech - with the Patriot Act, the government was allowed to monitor basically everything and has effectively kidnapped completely innocent people with no prior warning or reason on multiple occasions. Since the Patriot Act, the United States has been notable in its consistent infringements on human rights - corrupt cops, kidnapping innocent people, adding innocent people (including children) to travel blacklists, TSA screening, phone call monitoring, Gitmo.. the list is exhaustive. The U.S. is a perfect example of why you should not give up your liberty to the government in exchange for empty promises of fleeting security.
And nevermind the sex offender register, which alongside serial rapists and child molesters contains people who committed the 'offense' of having consensual sex with their girlfriend who may have only been a year or even a month younger, and has ruined their job prospects, living prospects and reputation permanently. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to tie this DNA business with convicting sex offenders here in Ireland at all.

With DNA, it's only a matter of time before it's not only for hardened criminals, but your average pot smoker, or people who've been caught peeing in public. And then who knows? And what happens if, come a few elections down the road, you're stuck choosing between governments who want to impose laws you don't agree with and want to use this DNA data to convict those 'criminals'? Would you still be trotting out the same lines then?

It boggles my mind the amount of trust some of you seem to have for your government, especially when you've quite recent history of corruption, greed and lies. Perhaps it's because I'm from North America and I've had exposure to the United States most of my life and have a very raw awareness of the corruption this may lead to under the guise of controlling crime or promoting security, I don't know - but it's a bit disturbing to see a sort of blind faith in the idea that any law imposed by the government must be just therefore any length gone to uphold it must be justified, even when it infringes on our rights, and that any disagreement with this implicates oneself as a criminal. And I find it difficult to understand the apparent lack of foresight or even hindsight when it comes to understanding why governmental control or monitoring of our private information is dangerous to us and our ancestors in the long run.

There's a much bigger picture here that the black and white statement of "if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem" simply does not account for.

liah wrote: »

It boggles my mind the amount of trust some of you seem to have for your government

Quoted for truth.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Err, if your DNA is someone mixed up with a murderer's, who then goes and murders someone then the only way you would be identified is if the murderer left DNA at the scene. In which case ANOTHER sample of your DNA can be taken and compared to the DNA found at the scene thereby proving your innocence.

Facepalm indeed.

And you're saying 100% that a fault can't occur within the system and that an innocent person can't be put in jail because of a mistake or otherwise. A man named Alan Gell in America was on death row for 5 years, even though the prosecution had the evidence before the trial that could free him... you know what that evidence was? he was already in jail at the time of the murder. He remained on death row for 2 more years before they released him. you're saying something like that could never happen here?

And let me get this straight, you think that someone caught smoking a joint should have his/her DNA put in a database?

I love the way you've steered clear of the idea of purposefully planting evidence.

Biggins wrote: »

Never said anything of the kind so please don't infer it.
You clearly mis-read my post.

No, I didn't miss read your post, my entire point was that I don't completely trust the government or a system put in place by the government that could jeopardise the freedom of the individual, the first thing you said was "over-reactionary rubbish", yet it was I who clearly misunderstood.

Biggins wrote: »

Short version: No law is perfect and is 100% secure but as mentioned already if you have a lawyer/solicitor/barrister with a modicum of working brain cells, then they should be able to defend you given the 'Trillion' odds and the other variables of evidence and alibis.
Not only would an officer have to state that your DNA was there BUT they would also have to show AND PROVE too, how it got there!

You're acting as if its absolute when you clearly pulled the "trillion" odds out of your ass, you don't know what the odds are that evidence can be mixed up. it's certainly not trillion. I'm not saying evidence gets mixed up all the time, but the fact is, it has happened with normal evidence, it could happen with DNA evidence and it probably will.

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?