spooky3 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The MP that 'supports' this has said: No kidding. In the previous DNA mass screenings (Sally Ann Bowman murder, Colin Pitchfork case, plus one other in Avon & Somerset), police screened between 4,000-4,500 individuals. How on earth she proposes they test a quarter of a million individuals I have no idea. Just to swab and process this many people will cost over £10 million, before counting the actual logistical costs of obtaining the samples then running the analysis. That cost can't be justified - it won't happen. Let's say this case has 100 Police officers involved for a month @ say £2500 a month, then it'd only be 40 similar incidents before the scheme would be making a saving. Say in the Bristol area there are 10 murders a year, then it'd be making a saving within 4 years! Yes this is localised, but once done then it'd relatively cheap to keep updated. Just think how many murders there are every year! Never mind how many other areas of crime detection could benefit from it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 and whats to say they might lose it, it get stolen? ... What could anyone do with a digital signature? ... you may find yourself a criminal in the future? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Maybe so but the principles of the arguement have to come down to more than cost. If not, are you saying that you would agree to a National DNA database if Aviva or someone would sponsor it? HAHAHAHA private companies sponsoring the police? hmmmmmmm just gets better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Maybe so but the principles of the arguement have to come down to more than cost. If not, are you saying that you would agree to a National DNA database if Aviva or someone would sponsor it? We have a National DNA Database. It just isn't all inclusive. This thread isn't about making it such - it's about DNA testing 250,000 men in Bristol, the cost of which cannot be justified on the basis of a single murder investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 What could anyone do with a digital signature? How? i dont know, you dont know, they dont know..........doesnt mean it cant happen. we discover more about dna, does it mean criminals cant too? nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumius Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 and whats to say they might lose it, it get stolen? you may find yourself a criminal in the future? We may just have to agree to disagree on this because if the risk is only the one that you outline here then I would be willing to take it. There seems to be lots of examples of DNA evidence proving the innocence of convicted killers but no examples have yet come to light of DNA being used to wrongly implicate someone. Or has there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twiglet Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Let's say this case has 100 Police officers involved for a month @ say £2500 a month, then it'd only be 40 similar incidents before the scheme would be making a saving. Say in the Bristol area there are 10 murders a year, then it'd be making a saving within 4 years! Yes this is localised, but once done then it'd relatively cheap to keep updated. Just think how many murders there are every year! Never mind how many other areas of crime detection could benefit from it! The costs of murder investigations aren't going to just disappear because you have everyone's DNA on file. You still have to go through the rest of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frumius Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 We have a National DNA Database. It just isn't all inclusive. This thread isn't about making it such - it's about DNA testing 250,000 men in Bristol, the cost of which cannot be justified on the basis of a single murder investigation. And if an organisation or Bill Gates or someone miraculously stepped forward and offered to fund it what would your reaction to that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 i dont know, you dont know, they dont know..........doesnt mean it cant happen. we discover more about dna, does it mean criminals cant too? nope Well currently in the security world i'm not aware of anything! And yes i'm quite well read on the subject of security biometrics. It can only be used in certain ways! Even then, they wouldn't be storing you actual DNA, just a digital signature. Your really worrying over nothing, i'm 99% sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichD Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share Posted January 9, 2011 We may just have to agree to disagree on this because if the risk is only the one that you outline here then I would be willing to take it. There seems to be lots of examples of DNA evidence proving the innocence of convicted killers but no examples have yet come to light of DNA being used to wrongly implicate someone. Or has there ? Yes, there has. I'll have a look and see if I can find a link... 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