Gymbal

Sorry, Mart, (I was) too slow typing

warrenm2

Just so you know Chris, Hitler WAS democratically elected and used democratic processes to pass the Enabling Act which he used to wield dictatorial power. Just so you know for future reference when arguing about history.

Also you claim it has citizens safety at heart. Care to provide evidence of that claim? Or is it in fact an 800 year system of checks and balances on the power of the executive that in fact is the source of citizen safety? And this is what we are discussing here. The state is given the power to police its citizens by those citizens. However it is not unilateral power. I beleive people here are arguing that DNAing people at birth is a step too far for the state to take in their name. And rather than DNA them at birth, why not tattoo their arm with a unique number? Quick easy and no misunderstanding who is who on the street! Who could argue against that? It helps solve crime! However that pesky old history says that states who control their populations like that are not really all that popular and people tend to get a bit upset. And so it comes down to how people wish to lead their lives, do you start with the assumption that people should be free from interference from the state in their lives, be presumed innoncent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and ONLY then suffer the punishment of the state as required by its members. I personally agree with retaining DNA of criminals found guilty in a court. I do not agree with retaining DNA of people who are innoncent, and not guilty of any charge.

Felix - Your 35% detection rate, could you include detail of how many of those are administrative detections? Just so we have all the facts

warrenm2

Administrative detection by the way is when for example a member of the public is caught with a small quantity of cannabis. The cannabis is confiscated and it is marked down as a detection. So Felix how many admin detections are in your figure?

boomer

Beautifully put

Thanks for that!

mb

Gymbal

hear, hear, warrenm2.
As a compromise IMHO, (benefits agaist risk) I think a criminal conviction could allow the data to be kept indefinately. It does require an honest debate without scare tactics (on either side).
Other uses to consider, would be to require informed consent, eg for a specific time period, or a specific investiation or forever, if agreed by that individual.
Not a blanket dictat.
This, of course, would still mean that the appropriate checks and balances are required to oversee, recognise, prevent and punish those who misuse or abuse such data. cf Ms Mckie

Felix.

Not sure to be honest. I would say about 25% or so. Each admin detection is still associated to an individual crime – so it’s not as though we are making the figures seem higher that what they are. For the likes of cannabis, the law change means that in some cases we can not justify an arrest and charge to court like we use to.

Felix.

Thats fine, so long as people understand that when their house is burgled, we have less of a chance of catching them.

When a body is found - we will have less chance of identifying them.

And criminals will have a better chance to falsify their details.

warrenm2

Sorry Felix but that comes back to the "how can anyone disagree with this measure - we are fighting crime" arguement above. Its because such measures taken in extremis start to infringe on what a free society wants. Please reread my earlier post on this (no 92) , thanks. Scaremongering on how you wont catch burglars because of this means you will just have to try harder using other methods

Mick

iTrader: (1)

One more problem with relying on DNA evidence on such a large scale will be that crims will be very careful not to leave DNA traces... We can already see alot of 'what-not-to-do when commiting a crime' on programmes like CSI - BUT worse the sensible thing for any crim with a brain would be to leave DNA evidence from someone else.

Imagine the cost of clogging up crime labs by dropping a bag of assorted DNA clues from 100 different donors (bought on ebay for £1.99 + £20.00 postage from Hong Kong ) at each crime scene.

It's like making number plate recognition cameras sprout up all over the country - people WILL use false plates to avoid detection. The government then makes it harder to get Reg plates made... Ooohhh tricky one that... the crims steal number plates off other cars

Mick

Gymbal

Felix, what was the equivalent detection rate 10-20 years ago? Prior to widespread DNA useage?

As for bodies, IMHO, dental records (not cetntrally held) and missing persons reports are the commonest method of detectoring?

mart360

Odd, if you dont have dna for the corpse, in the first place, your no better off.
so thats a bit of a nonsensical statement.

and re the second part of the quote, so are you telling us fingerprint evidence, witness's and cctv counts for nowt? in which case why do we need them,

Sorry felix, all i see from the pro bench, is a, blanket dna is the only appproved method and come what may it WILL happen.

dont agree with the methods used to obtain, and the pretense around it

Mart

Felix.

The point being, that the more DNA we take, the more chance we have of it being on the system.

When did I say that. DNA is used in conjunction with all of these. Fingerprint evidence will always supersede DNA in any event and besides, DNA is always quoted as a probability, unlike fingerprints and witness statements.

Sorry felix, all i see from the pro bench, is a, blanket dna is the only appproved method and come what may it WILL happen.

It’s only a cotton wool bud!

Like I said before, I understand the objections put forward. However I believe its has proved crucial in solving a lot of serious crimes and identifying a lot of nasty criminals who are now behind bars because of it. It has also proved people innocent etc. Would you not view this as being a positive contribution?

Unfortunately, it looks like it here to stay and with advances in technology, smaller and smaller samples can be processed.

Felix.

I'm not sure of the previous detection rate as I am not a figures mad bobby, but I would guess it will be a lot less due to the amount of DNA hits we get back from the labs these days.

You will also find that most crims don't go to the dentist and will therefore have no dental records. Two bodies (murder victims) I can think of in our area over the past few years were identified through DNA as no other method was possible.

They are literally hundreds of bodies found around the UK each year that can not be identified.

mart360

[QUOTE=Felix.]The point being, that the more DNA we take, the more chance we have of it being on the system.



When did I say that. DNA is used in conjunction with all of these.

Here:
hence my questioning why is this data being retained?



re my second point

It’s only a cotton wool bud!

Correct, but its the methods used to obtain a sample.!

If i was to attempt to obtain a swab from a member of the public, i would more than likeley be facing a charge for common assault, yet if i decline a dna swab, it will be taken using force if required. I cant see how this is right. If its an assault when one menber of the public does it to another, then there should be no differance if it is done by someone in authority to another.

[QUOTE=Felix.] Like I said before, I understand the objections put forward. However I believe its has proved crucial in solving a lot of serious crimes and identifying a lot of nasty criminals who are now behind bars because of it. It has also proved people innocent etc. Would you not view this as being a positive
contribution? [QUOTE=Felix.]

No one said it wasnt, what we are objecting to is the retention of the data once the investigation is over, and people are either not part of the investigation, or innocent.

Fair enough, but you have just said its only a probablity factor, and the majority of the evidence is, and i quote "Fingerprint evidence will always supersede DNA in any event and besides, DNA is always quoted as a probability, unlike fingerprints and witness statements." unquote
then why the need to rely on probability? when you have the evidence by other means?

And again you have managed to avoid the question raised at the beggining of the post, when will you answer that question!

Mart

Felix.

Well the answer is no, it will be kept.

Felix.

Mart

Our role at a crime scene (burglary, rape, assault etc) is to gather the evidence available. We can’t just solely rely on one and not bother looking at others. Fingerprints will hold a greater weight as they are unique whereas as DNA can never be judged as such. So all the evidence will be gathered and then assessed later to find the probably course of the incident.

The reasons why the government eleted to keep all DNA from arrested persons is to increase the chance of identifying suspects. In years past we had numerous crime scenes with a DNA sample. But no one on the system to match it against. The theory therefore is by increasing the database, then the greater the chance you have of identifying a suspect. This then greatens the chance of getting dangerous people off the streets (burglars, rapists etc etc) who may consider themselves safe so long as they are never convicted. Now even a slight brush with the law may prove disastrous for them.

The law states that a sample can be taken and by force if necessary. This in not an assault as it is lawful by law and besides they have chosen to take the harder option. Otherwise everyone would refuse knowing that we can’t put our hands on them. The same is true with handcuffs, CS gas etc etc.

Felix.

And another thing - most people we speak with think that it is a good idea - crims included. So I think the majority will complain if it is withdrawn.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

But can you quanitfy that? As per your request of Mart on a previous page?
Without such it is merely hearsay (or heresay).

As I see it, the (Oh dont quote that rubbish again) Human Right issue is that if a sample has been taken and the suspect released without charge, retention of the sample is a presumption of future guilt and a later requirement for the sample.
Hence guilty until proven innocent is becoming the norm.

DCI Gene Hunt

Who....?

Don't give it "most people we speak with" thats ***** and you know it....... its like me saying "most people we speak with think the rozzers are overpaid tossers that couldn't catch a feckin cold"........ although that is actually what most people tell me...

Felix.

I don't get that bit.......?

Any person being arrested provides DNA/fingerprints & photo. If they a released with no charge then the samples are kept and cross referenced against crimes scenes either past, present or future. If they make a match with a scene of crime then they will be quizzed on it.

Now this is not a presumption of guilt. It only is a piece of evidence which will need to be investigated with other evidence. For example, if your DNA is found on a cigarette at a crime scene, it quite possible that that may have been blown in or walked in by the suspect. If there is no other evidence linking you with the crime, then you won’t be charged with it. So, hence its not a case of guilt until proven innocent.

I’ve got no proof of what people say of course. I’d just thought I would let you know what people say when we take their DNA/fingerprints etc etc.

Peanuts

iTrader: (15)

You should expect a slightly different choice of wording should you be taking my DNA/fingerprints.

Holding innocent peoples DNA on the NDNADB is tantamount to Newspeak/Big brother/<insert other totalitarian state device here>, of course the police would have us believe that it is in public interest to have each and every citizen individually identifiable, they have the mistaken idea that we would all then be 100% accountable every step of the way, this is only required under the assumption that all are guilty until they are proven otherwise.

If this were not the case then you would try to track the guilty person and prove the case, instead you are trying to turn it on its head and start with the entire populous, then start eliminating the innocent.
See a pattern emerging here?

Your training course on "how to deflect public resistance to NDNADB" clearly didnt train you for this.


The next step of course, is that there will be a challange in the courts, this will be delayed as best as possible at all levels in the UK (for fear of a negative responce) but will eventually end up in Strasbourg ECHR, then you will try to tell us that we are stifling your work, society will suffer as a result and that how can you be expected to perform your duty effectively.

DNA testing/evidence is a good thing for individual crimes, holding a a record of all UK residents "in case" is a tragedy imho and I fear the day....

Felix.

As I said before, DNA is not solely used in an investigation. Other evidence will need to be used to prove the case.

So a DNA hit is returned. On investigation this person is looked at as a starting point for the investigation. On further enquiries it transpires that his description matches, he was stop checked earlier on the night close to the scene; he has a car which matches marks found at the scene, a partial fingerprint etc etc. Without the initial DNA hit, there would be no start point, but the DNA can not be used alone. But this is only a start point. If no other evidence exists other than DNA found on a drinks can, then the investigation will move to identify another suspect. Therefore a person can never be assumed guilty and must be proven so. Hence they are not accountable for their every move unless significant evidence is such that they are a suspect.


So how does this fit with the serial rapist (example the M25 rapist or Peter Sutcliffe), who is a predatory sex offender and will carry on committing his attacks without fear of getting caught because he has honed his MO to not being identified. Most of these will have had or will have a brush with the law for a minor offence. With this he will be identified

Mick

iTrader: (1)

What about the sotroy of Shirley Mackie...

mart360

trying some spin there??? are we?

if i recall you actually detained PS and released him, due to lack of evidence, and to quote your previous statements "dna is only a probability indicator" so how would this indicator have helped here? given that DNA techniques were near on zilch back then? stop trying to use irrelevant / out of date cases to substantiate your argument.

and re you last statement [/QUOTE]Most of these will have had or will have a brush with the law for a minor offence. With this he will be identified[/QUOTE]

It just confirms what peanuts and others have said earlier, "we have you on file, we,ll get you sooner or later!"

it raises doubts again, an innocent person has his dna taken and then could be persued and detained for some pretty serious scrimes, because his dna could be inocently found at a major incident. (and yes it can happen!!).

What i find disturbing is that fingerprint data is (supposedly) destroyed if taken and the subject is eliminated from the enquiries, but dna is not? hmm?? or is the fingerprint data actually destroyed? makes you wonder now dosent it.

and if this data is junk as you say, why the great fuss over obtaining it, and keeeping it? . And its nice to see that its legal to use force to obtain data from innocent people!!! makes a mockery of innocent until proven guilty dosent it!!!


mart

boomer

Peanuts,

Thankyou for your well worded and accurate reply. As long as there are people who recognise the danger of a police state, we have a chance to avoid it!

mb

Felix.

With him, DNA was in its infancy. But it’s more evidence against him if his DNA was found at each crime scene. The point being that if he was around now, he probably would have been identified after the first murder.

Only if you commit an offence. And is this not what the public want for criminals

I know it can, that’s why it is never used on its own.

Everything is kept – fingerprints, DNA and photo. It can also prove if someone has falsely used your details

Who said it was junk. Its just another piece of evidence collected. Its only legal to obtain by force if the person is arrested. Similarly to being able to put them in a cell etc etc. What would you rather see –

“You are going to be placed into a cell”
“No I’m not”
“OK then – just have a wander around the station”

mart360

Felix, no one is disputing the detention process (in name) at this period of time, (although should you and the powers that be substantially change it to the detriment of unsubstiantiated doubt) then we will be questioning this too

we are disputing the retention of evidence namely DNA if cases where the suspect/s are found / proven not guilty. Surley in this day and age, it should be fairly easy to take the required samples each time, and cross referance them. After all if a person previously found to be innocent and the FP & DNA evidence destroyed ( as should happen), then cross matching this would show nothing.

If however Mr X was arrested previoulsy for a minor or investigative reason, then there is the potential risk that a positive hit, could at a later date "cloud" or potentially alter the approach used toward an innocent suspect. (you know the scenario, "your on file, so you must have done something wrong")

can you honestly say "judgement " would never be clouded, based on a positive DNA hit against someone in a major high profile case?? even though the initial evidence is unsubstantiated?

If you are innocent, then DNA wouldnt prove anything, however if you have previous form (convicted), then fair enough.

which brings us back to square one, WHY is data being retianed when cases / suspects are proven innocent, and despite legal requirements to dispose of this data, chief constables are being told to ignore this?

surley this is a breach of leglislation, and could potentially cast an element of doubt into the validity of potential convictions at a later date.

Mart

Felix.

The point being, that if we don’t have an individual in the first place, we have nothing to cross reference with. A DNA hit will allow a potential name/suspect for the investigation, but the circumstances in which the DNA was found will be examined. For example – a single cigarette found in the garden of a rape scene could have blown in or been walked in. However, sample found in or on the victim will hold more weight in the investigation. This will be coupled with other evidence before a suspect is charged. Without the individual name at the start, then other evidence can’t be examined.

A DNA hit will never cloud an individual in the investigation. His previous from will only be looked at if it is relevant (eg a similar MO used in numerous crimes).

All the DNA hit will do is allow us to have a name as a starting point. Further lines will have to be investigated before we get as far as a charge.

Playing devils advocate, if your house is burgled and blood is found on a broken window and around the house – would you want us to identify the person who’s blood it was as a potential suspect using the DNA database as it is now, or just use the DNA database from convicted criminals only?

Mick

iTrader: (1)

But you can only hold someone in a cell for a certain amount of time before charging them or you have to let them go. If you end up charging them & it comes to court, if they are found guilty they will continue to be held in a cell, if found not guilty they will be free to go... - Agreed?

This should be exactly the same as collecting DNA evidence - if you have enough other evidence to warrant taking this information from a person then OK - if they are not found guilty let the person go and delete the evidence collected about them.

Just use the DNA database from convicted criminals only! - No question! - I don't understand why you ask! - I want the correct person caught for the crime every time, I don't want cases solved by putting 'someone' away for it when it wasn't them who commited the offence, just that they had a similar DNA profile and then weren't able to prove it wasn't them who was there - similar to Shirley Mackie's case above...

Mick

Dracoro

As you well know, the majority of crimes, especially ones like burglary, are committed by a relatively small number of career criminals. Most of these you'll already have the dna for. Most crimes are committed by those that have already had a brush with the law anyway and as you say you have the dna for these. Getting the dna en masse from the general public is unlikely to help you much. Aha I hear you say, what about rapists, murderers etc. who've not brushed with the law? Well, in these cases you already put a lot of resources into catching and on the whole succeed (according to your employers) so you'd catch them anyway.

On the subject of dna, did you know that a strand of dna found in, say, London would match 10 people, that's TEN people you could put away and it was only one of those ten that may have committed it (it could be none!).

There is great benefit in the use of dna but it must NOT be overstated, mass screening of dna will reap little benefits (most crims already 'in the books') given the effort in retrieving dna from 60 million people obv doesn't included people 'outside' the system (i.e many crims keep themselves outside the system, even more so with id cards and dna on the horizon) and those from abroad. So it seems like a lot of pain for very little gain (unless there's some ulterior motive involved)