splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Especially if you are a criminal. Come on Splodge. What have you done? Tell us now. YOu know you'll feel better for getting it off your chest. No need to tell us where we can find you.....We already know.Or just if you like the concepts of freedom and liberty. Why have you got so much against this? Why do you want to know everything about everybody? Is it paranoia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Free enough to choose to reject all those things if one wishes to do so. Maybe. But practically nobody is willing to reject them for the sake of anything at all. I dont say that people should be forced to provide their DNA for a National DNA Database. I think everybody should be crying out for one, keen to be a part of it because of the help it would provide in crime detection and clear up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Or just if you like the concepts of freedom and liberty. Why have you got so much against this? Why do you want to know everything about everybody? Is it paranoia? Why is it impinging on the freedom and liberty of good citezens to have a National DNA database ? what are you afraid will happen to you? How do you think your life would change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I dont say that people should be forced to provide their DNA for a National DNA Database. I think everybody should be crying out for one, keen to be a part of it because of the help it would provide in crime detection and clear up. Especially because juries (and you) think DNA science is much more accurate than it really is, so it's dead easy to convict the wrong person! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 DNA matching is very complicated and there's no such thing as a "match", just varying amounts of similarity. However, juries have a lack of scientific understanding and will simply believe an "expert" who says they have found a DNA match. Based on that, they will be minded to convict. How is the defendant supposed to challenge that? It's not like a photo where you can say "that's not me!". You need your own experts. Amanda Knox has now spent many months behind bars, largely on the strength of DNA evidence convincing a jury. Her DNA was on the knife - she must be the killer! This is your assumption. The same scenario exists for fingerprint evidence. But Defence lawyers can challenge it just as in the knox case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Why is it impinging on the freedom and liberty of good citezens to have a National DNA database ? what are you afraid will happen to you? How do you think your life would change?The NDNAD by itself isn't, as I've said previously on this thread. What I'm afraid, as previously implied, is exactly the same as the American founding fathers when they drew up their constitution. Have you donated your DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Especially because juries (and you) think DNA science is much more accurate than it really is, so it's dead easy to convict the wrong person! It is a bit of a leap to believe you can imagine what juriesmust be thinking. Do you not think that a defence lawyer worth his fee would provide his own experts and his own interpretation to ensure they are not hoodwinked as you suppose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is your assumption. The same scenario exists for fingerprint evidence. But Defence lawyers can challenge it just as in the knox case. No, that was the jury's assumption. At present it looks like she has spent many months behind bars for a crime she didn't commit, based on flawed DNA forensics and an unquestioning jury. I'll choose minimise the risk of a similar fate by not volunteering to match myself against squillions of crimes I know I didn't commit but cannot remember what I was doing on that night X years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Do you not think that a defence lawyer worth his fee would provide his own experts and his own interpretation to ensure they are not hoodwinked as you suppose? Evidently not! It is only now - after many months of imprisonment - that the evidence is being re-examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Nothing to fear then. Reality, and the way some DNA evidence has been used would appear to suggets otherwise (at least for a minority). Since I am innocent of any crime there really isn't any reason for the police to have my DNA. 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