Conrod Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 why are people reluctant to provide their DNA ?I don't understand that either. I've heard some fools argue that having their DNA on a national database would make it easy for them to be framed for a crime. The reality is that if everybody's dNA were held on a national database, the savings in Police time and investigation cost would be vast, freeing up coppers to patrol the streets and making sure that the worst of our criminals found it very hard indeed to escape justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't understand that either. I've heard some fools argue that having their DNA on a national database would make it easy for them to be framed for a crime. The reality is that if everybody's dNA were held on a national database, the savings in Police time and investigation cost would be vast, freeing up coppers to patrol the streets and making sure that the worst of our criminals found it very hard indeed to escape justice. Which would definitely be of benefit when some future less benign government makes stupidity a crime punishable by death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't understand that either. I've heard some fools argue that having their DNA on a national database would make it easy for them to be framed for a crime. The reality is that if everybody's dNA were held on a national database, the savings in Police time and investigation cost would be vast, freeing up coppers to patrol the streets and making sure that the worst of our criminals found it very hard indeed to escape justice. I know, people can put gloves on to hide finger prints. They can cover their faces to avoid CCTV. But it is really quite hard to avoid leaving DNA. The DB would only store a signature of the DNA, not the DNA itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think one of the reasons people are reluctant to put their DNA on record is the potential for mistakes. Error could lead to wrongful imprisonment, and as DNA evidence is popularly seen as being incontrevertible it might be a very difficult hole to dig oneself out of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noob Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Are women now incapable of strangling eachother? Why just the blokes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumius Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I prefer to just know that I haven't murdered your or anyone else's daughter. In a free country, I should not have to go on some database in an attempt to prove a negative, regardless of the emotiveness of the case. You dont have to prove anything either way. It is just a means by which the police could potentially, quickly and definitely eliminate millions of people from the enquiry...and maybe implicate the perpetrator. I am no more opposed to being on a DNA database than I am to providing my fingerprints to the police investigating a burglary at my friend;s house where I have been recently. It just means they can eliminate me from the enquiry and enables them to narrow down the possible culprits. Besides there are some cases where you are required to prove a negative eg you may be required to give a breath test to prove you havent been drinking. surely you would want to help catch a killer if you could in some small way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think one of the reasons people are reluctant to put their DNA on record is the potential for mistakes. Error could lead to wrongful imprisonment, and as DNA evidence is popularly seen as being incontrevertible it might be a very difficult hole to dig oneself out of. How would a 'mistake' lead to wrongful imprisonment? If DNA, or fingerprints, are found at the scene of a crime it wouldn't bother me if my prints or DNA were on record. I'd need a hell of an imagination to be worried that my DNA would be involved in the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) You dont have to prove anything either way. It is just a means by which the police could potentially, quickly and definitely eliminate millions of people from the enquiry...and maybe implicate the perpetrator. I am no more opposed to being on a DNA database than I am to providing my fingerprints to the police investigating a burglary at my friend;s house where I have been recently. It just means they can eliminate me from the enquiry and enables them to narrow down the possible culprits. Besides there are some cases where you are required to prove a negative eg you may be required to give a breath test to prove you havent been drinking. surely you would want to help catch a killer if you could in some small way? Do you think the police have the right to take the entire street's fingerprints when investigating the burglary at your friend's? Er, no. They take the breath sample to prove you have been drinking. I am helping - by not wasting police time making them take a sample from one of the millions of people who didn't do it! Have you volunteered your DNA yet? Edited January 10, 2011 by splodgeyAl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 How would a 'mistake' lead to wrongful imprisonment? DNA database of every adult in the UK - say 50million adults - an error rate of only 1% would be, erm, 500,000 individuals for whom DNA record could not be confirmed. Person 'A' is a murderer, but samples from the crime scene match the database entry for person 'b' - 'b' goes to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 How would a 'mistake' lead to wrongful imprisonment? DNA database of every adult in the UK - say 50million adults - an error rate of only 1% would be, erm, 500,000 individuals for whom DNA record could not be confirmed. Person 'A' is a murderer, but samples from the crime scene match the database entry for person 'b' - 'b' goes to jail. I'm sure they'd take another DNA sample before they banged you up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now