MP wants ALL men in Bristol DNA screened to find killer

[Kaimani]

It is very hard for a person to commit certain types of crime without leaving behind DNA in some form. Clearly sexual assault/murder will always leave DNA.

 

In the case in Bristol my understanding is that the perpetrator did leave DNA evidence.

 

Also there are other examples where a person has been required to provide a DNA sample because they have been arrested for eg a traffic offence. That DNA has matched DNA left at a more serious crime scene. It transpires that the police got lucky....or the criminal got unlucky........because the more serious crime was cleared up in this way.

 

If an all inclusive National DNA database existed then the police could, at the click of a mouse, eliminate millions of people from the the pool of potential suspects and maybe narrow the field of suspects very quickly.

 

For example; I think that, if a NDNADB had existed in the 1980s then the Yorkshire ripper would have had a much shorter career. That is just one example but an important one to those kids who lost their mums.

 

i see what you mean. the thing is, though, how many people do you think would be caught this way? how much would the data base cost? what crimes would we use for this data base. could we, say, get people walking around picking up gum, chewed up chicken bones and testing then sending people tickets? could fathers who don't trust that kids are theirs have the DNA compared when the kid reaches whatever age we say if the cut off.

the fear of the bogey man, and the illusion that some violations governments will never do is what fuel the need for this data base i think.

insurance companies buying the information to make decisions on customers, local councils etc.

i think the benefits aren't much more than what can be achieved but other means.

murder can be done with a gun. clean, no DNA. sexual assault is the same, many ways to do it 'clean' knowing about the DNA database might mean monsters kill and burn etc their victims to get rid of evidence. these are all things to consider.

i would hazard a theory that seeing as most perpetrators(i hate that word) of the crimes you mention start small and are repeat offenders who are almost always caught for something or the other they would be in the database that's already there.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Kaimani
.

[TallestDwarf]

You're utterly wrong as it happens.

 

 

I can think of any number of ways a murder or sexual assault could be comitted without leaving DNA.

 

Could be maybe but are they ever?

[Twiglet]

Could be maybe but are they ever?

 

Yes, very frequently.

[TallestDwarf]

i see what you mean. the thing is, though, how many people do you think would be caught this way? how much would the data base cost? what crimes would we use for this data base. could we, say, get people walking around picking up gum, chewed up chicken bones and testing then sending people tickets? could fathers who don't trust that kids are theirs have the DNA compared when the kid reaches whatever age we say if the cut off.

the fear of the bogey man, and the illusion that some violations governments will never do is what fuel the need for this data base i think.

insurance companies buying the information to make decisions on customers, local councils etc.

i think the benefits aren't much more than what can be achieved but other means.

murder can be done with a gun. clean, no DNA. sexual assault is the same, many ways to do it 'clean' knowing about the DNA database might mean monsters kill and burn etc their victims to get rid of evidence. these are all things to consider.

i would hazard a theory that seeing as most perpetrators(i hate that word) of the crimes you mention start small and are repeat offenders who are almost always caught for something or the other they would be in the database that's already there.

 

DNA will certainly not be the answer in all cases as you say and it may not be cost-effective (I hate that expression). I dont know. But the fact is that DNA is left by ciminals a lot of the time. The existance of a database can be a help in these situations.

 

Certainly if someone I knew had been found strangled and naked by a roadside with someones DNA on them; I would want the police to have a good chance of matching that DNA to someone whether they had been convicted of something else or not.

 

Abuse of the information is an interesting point. Insurance companies are probably the most likely to do this. It may be that a government could/has legislated against using DNA in this way. If not it may be that insurance comanies would not wait for a national database. They may refuse to insure you unless you provide them with your DNA. They already ask some pretty searching questions and your insurance can be invalidated even if you answer wrongly in error.

 

I think the debate is going in circles now and decending into rowing by some contributors. I would be interested to hear a police officer's p.o.v. and Shami Chakrabati (how do you spell her name?)

[Halibut]

Could be maybe but are they ever?

 

Yes, like Twiglet said. I think you'll find that DNA evidence in murder and sexual assault is much less common than some people assume it to be.

 

The vast majority of murder cases do not involve DNA evidence.

[TallestDwarf]

Yes, very frequently.

 

Really? A sexual assault that leaves no DNA?

[Halibut]

DNA will certainly not be the answer in all cases as you say and it may not be cost-effective (I hate that expression). I dont know. But the fact is that DNA is left by ciminals a lot of the time. The existance of a database can be a help in these situations.

 

Certainly if someone I knew had been found strangled and naked by a roadside with someones DNA on them; I would want the police to have a good chance of matching that DNA to someone whether they had been convicted of something else or not.

 

Abuse of the information is an interesting point. Insurance companies are probably the most likely to do this. It may be that a government could/has legislated against using DNA in this way. If not it may be that insurance comanies would not wait for a national database. They may refuse to insure you unless you provide them with your DNA. They already ask some pretty searching questions and your insurance can be invalidated even if you answer wrongly in error.

 

I think the debate is going in circles now and decending into rowing by some contributors. I would be interested to hear a police officer's p.o.v. and Shami Chakrabati (how do you spell her name?)

 

No it isn't. It isn't there much more often than it is - you're utterly wrong still.

[Halibut]

Really? A sexual assault that leaves no DNA?

 

Yes, without going into too much detail it's entirely feasible that there wouldn't be any DNA evidence. If the man either doesn't ejaculate, or uses a condom and is careful not to leave any saliva and avoids getting scratched it's highly probable he won't leave any useful DNA behind.

[TallestDwarf]

No it isn't. It isn't there much more often than it is - you're utterly wrong still.

 

Halibut I respect your view but I'm at the point where I need some stats or annecdotal view of a police officer.

 

Can you say how I am utterly wrong? Am I also wrong to think that the police have a section devoted to using DNA evidence to clear up dormant investigations?

[TallestDwarf]

Yes, without going into too much detail it's entirely feasible that there wouldn't be any DNA evidence. If the man either doesn't ejaculate, or uses a condom and is careful not to leave any saliva and avoids getting scratched it's highly probable he won't leave any useful DNA behind.

 

Are sexual assaults committed by people in such control of themselves and their victims?