I'm not sure what the situation is in other countries, however anybody in the UK which has been connected with a crime can have their DNA recorded. This can even extend to people helping at the scene! Moreover, it is very difficult to get it removed once on the database.

However, before you jump to conclusions, consider the large number of crimes for which there is substantial circumstancial evidence against a suspect, but they cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. Many of these people must have been subsequently convicted for another crime through their DNA, and as a consequence this has prevented other potential innocent victims suffering.

Perhaps having DNA recorded should be an option for the jury as a consequence of having the case unproven? This would happen in situations where there is substantial evidence against the accused, but not enough to convict. However, completely innocent bystanders should not have their DNA recorded.

The scientist behind DNA fingerprinting has called for a change to the law governing DNA databases on the 25th anniversary of his discovery.
Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys uncovered the process by chance in his laboratory at Leicester University. The technique has since been used to solve crimes and identity cases. But it has also led to controversy over profiles kept on the national DNA database. "Innocent people do not belong on that database," he said. The scientist stumbled across the groundbreaking development on 10 September, 1984. He realised that variable patterns in the structure of DNA could be used to distinguish one person from another.

It led to the development of DNA fingerprinting, which has been used to solve a range of crimes. Last year, [in the UK?] 17,614 offences were solved using a DNA match, including 83 killings and 184 rapes. It has also been developed to help solve unanswered questions and disputes over personal identity, paternity, immigration, conservation and cloning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8247641.stm

I don't understand penalizing people who help out or call the police in.

Who is innocent and who are guilty? Criminals dont go around the street advertising that they are guilty. In American you are presumed to be innocent until you are PROVEN guilty. There are declarations of innocence worthy anything until after someone has been convicted of a crime, and even then thats not a guerentee the innocent are often locked up or executed by mistake. The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Who is innocent and who are guilty? Criminals dont go around the street advertising that they are guilty. In American you are presumed to be innocent until you are PROVEN guilty. There are declarations of innocence worthy anything until after someone has been convicted of a crime, and even then thats not a guerentee the innocent are often locked up or executed by mistake. The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence.

Not sure what you are saying here, do you think DNA samples should be taken of suspects or not? If not are you willing to have more criminals go free on the basis of insufficient evidence?

In Britain ...any one that is charged with a crime has their DNA taken along with their finger prints and mug shot. Now if the charges are later dropped all this material remains in the hands of the Police. It has been used over the years to solve many of the out standing cold cases for a large range of offences from murder down to minor offences. Is right for the police to do this is the question.

If you're a foreigner, the only right you have is the right to remain silent.

In my opinion if one has nothing to hide then what is the big deal about having one's DNA on file? If a person is innocent they shouldn't have anything to fear. I feel strongly that this type of thing could help convict people who seem innocent (and who's records are not on file because they have not been caught for a crime), yet are truly the guilty ones.

...however, on the flip side I wonder if that is too much power to the government and if they would somehow take advantage of the innocent citizens.... (How I don't know, I'm just suspicious).

It depends on how well it stays in police hands.
This can very easily be abused. What if they started analyzing commonalities between criminal DNA and so they decide to look and see who else (among the innocent) have this DNA trait? And what if it is you? It'll be the end of your privacy.
Sometimes I just want to get a trailer...

Originally Posted by perseus

I'm not sure what the situation is in other countries, however anybody in the UK which has been connected with a crime can have their DNA recorded. This can even extend to people helping at the scene! Moreover, it is very difficult to get it removed once on the database.

However, before you jump to conclusions, consider the large number of crimes for which there is substantial circumstancial evidence against a suspect, but they cannot be convicted beyond reasonable doubt. Many of these people must have been subsequently convicted for another crime through their DNA, and as a consequence this has prevented other potential innocent victims suffering.

Perhaps having DNA recorded should be an option for the jury as a consequence of having the case unproven? This would happen in situations where there is substantial evidence against the accused, but not enough to convict. However, completely innocent bystanders should not have their DNA recorded.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8247641.stm

I do not believe people who have not been convicted of a crime should have to be in the data base.
If someone is arreseted and charged with a crime and then found not quilty in court. What part of "Not Quilty" should be questioned. Not guilty means they have commited no crime, therefore not a criminal.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Who is innocent and who are guilty? Criminals dont go around the street advertising that they are guilty. In American you are presumed to be innocent until you are PROVEN guilty. There are declarations of innocence worthy anything until after someone has been convicted of a crime, and even then thats not a guerentee the innocent are often locked up or executed by mistake. The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence.

The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence.


Could you be a little more vaque please? I take it you made this up, as you have not supplied sources.

I would ask for sources but I know that isn't going to happen.

Which is the news?
They might have executed someone in Texas?
Or;
Someone in Texas is suspected of being innocent?

Not so vague anymore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/op...01herbert.html