DNA Human Rights

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by tommo, Dec 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7710310.stm

    According to 17 EU Judges it's against human rights to store DNA on Database

    How I see it if your innocent it will prove your innocent and you have nothing to worry about nor hide.

    If it speeds up finding which sick bastard raped so and so or which sick individual or group abused a child then it can only be a good thing.

    Maybe I'm off the mark here, maybe the victims have no human rights and those only thinking OMG they got me on file that's a breach of my rights have rights.

    I know this is only my opinion but surely I can't think of other ways which could speed up the process of catching the bad people?
     
  2. A DNA database will only be effective if everybody's DNA profile is on file. I have no problem with my DNA being taken and stored, but I'm a generally law-abiding good egg.

    The European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction because we allow it to. Get us out of the EU and let us manage our own lives again - then we can watch those who have good reason not to have their DNA on file squirm!

    Just think how many murderers / paedophiles would be locked up if all their DNA profiles were available.
     
  3. I personally don't see a problem nor do I see how it would affect my human rights if I'm not doing anything wrong.

    It's only if you have something to hide would it cause you a problem. Also if it speeds up cases such as rape and also solves cases that haven't been solved surely it's a good thing.

    That Truckey that was jailed for murder of prositutes was caught due to the DNA Database after he had a sample taken for an £80 crime
     

  4. Firstly, we need to build prisons to put them in, and a judiciary that actually sends them there. We are lacking in both areas presently.
     
  5. From my perspective there are three main areas where DNA profiling causes problems. Privacy, usability and the general principle of government intrusion.

    The Data Protection Act allows for the retention of data where the material is accurate and retention is both proportionate and related to a clear business purpose. Whilst DNA profiling is governed under separate legislation I think these principles should continue to apply. Retention of this kind of data is neither proportionate nor related to a clear business purpose.

    In terms of usability, the Nuffield research alluded to discusses how usable a large DNA database actually is. They determined that the usefulness actually diminishes after a certain point, and just going on fishing expeditions didn't derive enough useful information to help in an investigation. This was related to how sampling from a pool of convicted criminals elicited more reliable results than just going on a fishing expedition which would deliver far more results than could meaningfully be investigated. Part of that was the recognition that DNA profiles are not unique, and the degree of error associated with some of the mechanisms was quite high. that last point leads to the question of ''accuracy'' above in my point about the DPA, if it's not unique then how reliable is the retention?

    And from a libertarian perspective I object to the government, per se, retaining any more information on the individual than it has to in order to facilitate the delivery of service to the citizen. Recognising that the service delivery includes law enforcement I'm unconvinced that a huge database of unreliable information actually helps assure the security of the individual. I would take the view that given the challenges of assuring the security of said database probably increases the risk of the information being compromised and reducing the security of the individual.
     
  6. So how long can DNA be kept before it can be deemed unusuable?
     
  7. So England will be forced to fall in line with Scotland where we do not allow the random harvesting of DNA data by Mr Plod.

    Just as there have been problems with techniques such as fingerprinting there are questions over some methods of determining DNA profiles and on that basis I would suggest that it is perhaps not the time to go for a national cull of DNA data.

    Also the retention of such data after involvemnent with Mr Plod tends to suggest that the subject is perhaps not innocent, and that is contrary to our law.
     
  8. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    If anyone wants my DNA they're welcome to it - left plenty of it on buggery boards arund the Fleet... :twisted:
     
  9. Maxi I understand what you are saying. I also agree but only to a point though.

    But I've not heard of another way that will speed up finding rapists etc, solving unsolved crimes due to not having a match with the DNA sample.

    I can see both sides of the arguement with holding DNA and Not to hold DNA

    But is there any other solutions?
     
  10. No thanks SGTP, I already have some I found on my Dogs blanket after you looked after him. :lick: :donut:
     
  11. That wasn't entirely the point about usability, as long as the sample is analysed in reasonable time then the data is valid, for that sample. The point of the usability issue is that the data delivered by analysis will deliver a number of results out of the database. The study demonstrated that with a large database the numbers of results would be quite high, and each of those results would need investigation to discount them. Many of the results could be fairly quickly discounted, but essentially that discounting is nugatory effort in an investigation and whilst each individual result could be quickly discounted the sheer number of those created a significant demand on the available resource. By searching against a tailored database, and one could quite simply tailor the database by only including convicted individuals, then the amount of nugatory effort is significantly reduced.

    Clearly that does introduce the risk that the sample used as evidence is from someone who doesn't already exist in the database. Resource can then be put into identifying that individual through other means, which they demonstrated was quicker and more effective than fishing expeditions.
     
  12. So let me get this right

    Basically your saying if my DNA was on a database there could be others like it? And if I commited a crime they took my DNA it could bring up a bunch of matches?

    Sorry just trying to understand what you are saying lol
     
  13. One sure fire benefit of having a DNA data base is the amount of cold cases that may get solved, and the acquittals of those wrongly accused and are currently sitting behind bars...

    like it or not, this is the way of the future, simple as taking a blood sample at time of birth, and this will help protect individuals from being falsely accused as well as identifying remains.

    I agree that the Government aspect of this is onerous at best, my other concern is the method of using the DNA for other means (cloning for instance) at what point is the DNA sample no longer your property, the minute it is taken at birth or does it remain a part of you until it is needed....lots of security implications here...
     
  14. Essentially, yes. The current techniques used have both a reasonable error rate, and they're also not accurate enough to be definitive. It gives an indication of possible responsibility and little more. The conclusions from a DNA profile would need to be corroborated through other means.

    Yes

    And equally you can be identified through a fishing expedition based on someone elses crime.
     
  15. OK So what other solutions are there. The DNA Database does have it success rate as well and has solved crimes already thanks to having people's DNA on a database.
     
  16. Karma is quite right. :thumright:

    Tommo & Come the day

    Membership of the EU has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which predates the former. Britain was one of the countries instrumental in creating the Court following the horrors of World War II. Whilst it is true that a precondition of EU membership is being a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, there are many signatories who are not EU members. Were Britain ever to seek to abrogate upon this tready, which would amount to a violation of international law, she would be open to sanctions and it would have disasterous consequences both for our international credibility and standing. The legal body that enforces EU law is the more powerful European Court of Justice (ECJ). Rulings by the ECtHR are binding insomuch as the offending State must change their laws, usually within 2 years of a ruling. This duty is a treaty obligation.

    This case was about whether the state was at liberty to retain genetic data on subjects who have not been convicted of any crime. The police can retain the genetic profiles of convicted offenders (who commit the vast majority of crimes) but not of innocent people. Whilst you may wish to live in a police state, many of us do not! Retaining genetic information 'just on the offchance' is unacceptable. Moreover given the police's record of abusing evidence and getting away with it,* it is also undesirable.

    For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7762970.stm !!!
     
  17. the database hasn't solved any crimes in its own right, it's a tool and needs to be used in conjunction with other tools.

    In any case, the purpose of this thread is discussion of the ECHR decision around retention of material on individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. The available studies indicate that this actually improves the usefulness of the existing database as a tool, although part of that is related to criminal psychology as well. Individuals tend to be guilty of more than one thing, as suggested by the example you use above.
     
  18. Karma, I salute you again sir! :salute:

    DNA evidence (or any other forensic evidence for that matter) is insufficient proof of a subject's guilt. If these data cannot be corroborated then any conviction based solely upon this evidence would be unsafe. Contrary to popular misconception, genetic profiling is NOT failsafe.
     
  19. I know it's only a tool but a significant tool at that. It's not that don't agree with what's being said by Karma infact he's been very informative on the matter. I just see how holding information can solve crimes quicker and those that haven't been solved. Well I can see the theory how it can.

    I don't however believe it's against my human rights if they had my DNA if used for this purpose.

    If that makes sense, I've nothing to hide and it's not stopping me from carrying out my life.

    I still stand by my notion stating if I'm innocent it will prove me innocent, if I'm guilty it will prove me guilty (Well help towards proving me guilty)

    Yes we're innocent until proven guilty and if that is the case having information to prove that is the case or not isn't a bad thing but going by what Karma has said it seems to me the system needs improving.

    It's actually nice not to belittled discussing the topic as I've found in the past on another forum for not agreeing with their opinion
     

Share This Page