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?

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?

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

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

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.

your guardian link wrote:

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.

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

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!

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*

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.