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