Should innocent people belong on a DNA database?

perseus

perseus

Active member
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.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8247641.stm
 
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.
 
mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
perseus said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

mmarsh said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
:-D
 
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.
Click to expand...

I have always been taught never to be certain of anything, only to have degrees of belief. Since Juries are amateurs by definition and defendants have counsels of differing abilities it is inevitable that many guilty are found innocent and vice versa.

Juries may be reluctant to convict unless absolutely certain, how certain do you want to be. What happens if one is 90% convinced that a murderer is guilty and he may offend again?

Shouldn't OJ be on a DNA database? few think he is innocent and it would focus his mind into not offending again.

Edit!
 
Last edited:
"The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence." quote mmarsh


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


the_13th_redneck said:
Not so vague anymore:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01herbert.html
Click to expand...


From your source. Executed 2004, for a crime in 1991. Does not sound like "this weeks news" to me. Like to try again?:-D

Certainly is not current news. Not too surprised someone else would answer for mmarsh, as supplying sources has proved to be beyond his abilities.:roll:

Also the "source" you provided is a OP-ED article not a news story. OP-ED means a Opinion of a Editor, and not a factual news article, it is opinion. Probably why you did not choose to post any of this mans opinion in your post.

OJ probably is in the data base now, as he is a criminal serving time in prison.
 
Last edited:
PRECISELY Wallabies. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have them in the database for prevention. If the person knows their fingerprints will already have a name/face/address attached to them, they might think twice about committing a criminal act.
 
Chukpike said:
"The news this week in Texas was that they might have executed someone who is suspected of being innocence." quote mmarsh


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





From your source. Executed 2004, for a crime in 1991. Does not sound like "this weeks news" to me. Like to try again?:-D

Certainly is not current news. Not too surprised someone else would answer for mmarsh, as supplying sources has proved to be beyond his abilities.:roll:

Also the "source" you provided is a OP-ED article not a news story. OP-ED means a Opinion of a Editor, and not a factual news article, it is opinion. Probably why you did not choose to post any of this mans opinion in your post.

OJ probably is in the data base now, as he is a criminal serving time in prison.
Click to expand...

Very much a past event but it's been in the news pretty recently.
I think they only just realized that it was an error.
 
Rob Henderson said:
PRECISELY Wallabies. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have them in the database for prevention. If the person knows their fingerprints will already have a name/face/address attached to them, they might think twice about committing a criminal act.
Click to expand...
Good point.

So by your reasoning everyone's DNA and fingerprints should be added to the Data Base at birth, that way everyone will think twice about committing a criminal act.

Whatever happened to "doing the right thing" even if you are not being watched. People used to be brought up with morals. Their moral upbringing would keep someone from having to think twice about committing a criminal act.
 
The DNA from innocent people, least those who can afford it, right at birth. It's being offered to people to identify diseases and ability to *pre-treat* those with identified diseases. Criminals in Canada and US (I think) are (permanently) registering sex offenders and their DNA. It's also been great during the 9/11 event for the people of NYC. I think it's a great tool for the law and medical fields. Maybe what you are referring to is to capture more DNA for reference against possible criminals? :???:
 
Might not be a bad idea... But quite honestly, I think it might be a LITTLE cost ineffective.


There was, is, and always will be crime. Even in "polite" society, there was crime. The whole "back in my day" argument doesn't really apply here. There were still murders, still infidelities, still rapes, etc.
 
GG9909 said:
The DNA from innocent people, least those who can afford it, right at birth. It's being offered to people to identify diseases and ability to *pre-treat* those with identified diseases. Criminals in Canada and US (I think) are (permanently) registering sex offenders and their DNA. It's also been great during the 9/11 event for the people of NYC. I think it's a great tool for the law and medical fields. Maybe what you are referring to is to capture more DNA for reference against possible criminals? :???:
Click to expand...

The danger:

Insurance companies could use it to refuse to pay for pre existing conditions identified from DNA profile.

Employers may not hire you because of DNA showing possible alcoholic tendencies or other conditions that might impair your ability to do the job.

Just a few points of what misuse can do.

Having a persons "DNA profile" in the public domain will constitute an invasion of privacy. Will the benefit to the general population be more than the harm it might do to the individual?

To use it for good effect, every time you have contact with authorities they could take a sample, analyze it, and check to see if you have any problems. They will need to do this to insure "your safety".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top