Police retaining DNA on a register?Innocent or not

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

16 October 2006, 10:45 PM

#121

Felix.

Scooby Regular

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 2,926

Likes: 0

Received 17 Likes on 8 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

if they are not found guilty let the person go and delete the evidence collected about them.

And hope the person doesn’t commit further crimes….. Believe me the majority of them will and it’s nice to think that we could be one step ahead of them. In theory, a burglar who has never been in trouble with the police before will be impossible to identify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

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,
Mick

You miss understand I believe. What if the person who committed the burglary is not a convicted criminal; he has been arrested before but never convicted. His DNA would not be on the database and he gets away again with this crime by not being identified. If however we can use the DNA from all those who have been arrested (regardless to whether they have been convicted) then the person will be identified.

Therefore the correct person will be identified regardless of whether he is a career criminal or an opportunist

Reply Like

16 October 2006, 11:07 PM

#122

Felix.

Scooby Regular

Join Date: Nov 2002

Posts: 2,926

Likes: 0

Received 17 Likes on 8 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You will be surprised how many burglars they are. Most are opportunists who see an open window or open door, sneak in and out within seconds. Some have been convicted before, but there are loads that haven’t. Therefore the more DNA/fingerprints in the database, the greater the chance of identification of a possible suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dracoro

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!).

As I said before, DNA is never solely used as evidence. It’s merely a start point by identifying a possible suspect. Other evidence will need to be examined before a charge and conviction can be gained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dracoro

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')

I wouldn’t say most are – I would say some are, but they are a hell of a lot that are not. Most I would say have been arrested at some point or arrested numerous times but as yet have not had any charges stick. It’s these “hell of a lot of people” that we need to identify if they become involved in crime again. Otherwise they will just continue to get away with it all the time.

Reply Like