Should a persons DNA be taken & registered at birth

[sevenmonkeys]

I would like to see a database of DNA kept, I would start with people on benefits and make it a requirement we could then reduce fraudulent multiple claims. I think a database should be accessible by the police in that they could check if the DNA is on the database but not who it belongs to then a judge or whatever would then be required to review the reasons why the police want the name belonging to the DNA before that information is given out. Cue the we dont live in a police state yet, civil liberties brigade replies.

[tommyboy1289]

What would happen if a corrupt policeman/woman planted your DNA at a crime scene.

 

By the time the goverment had got round to this, budget cuts would mean police are a thing of the past

[fake]

No, definitely not.

 

I think some people seem to think that DNA is somehow a magic bullet in solving crime when it can only be use in conjunction with other evidence. DNA in itself cannot prove a thing as it cant be used on its own to convict someone and is of more use in excluding certain groups of people.

 

There is also the question of expense vs cost-effectiveness as taking, storing and sequencing DNA is expensive.

 

Its about as useful as the scrapped ID scheme was.

[Plain Talker]

there is a flaw in this idea, in that what happens to the person with, say, leukaemia, who has a bone Marrow transplant, or has another genetic condition requiring gene therapy?

 

Their DNA would be different because of the "graft" DNA, wouldn't it?

 

Would their DNA not match their graft donor?

 

Therefore if their DNA were to be referenced against their "birth" DNA, there's be no match, so I''d forsee the potential for someone guilty being let off, or someone not guilty being convicted... if their DNA was a mismatch to that expected?

[fake]

there is a flaw in this idea, in that what happens to the person with, say, leukaemia, who has a bone Marrow transplant, or has another genetic condition requiring gene therapy?

 

Their DNA would be different because of the "graft" DNA, wouldn't it?

 

No the individuals DNA is not altered and when they do a bone marrow transplant its usually from stem cells from a donor match and normally from a relative who would also carry the same DNA.

[ronthenekred]

serious question with all the horrendous crimes of rape , murder & assult not to mention burglary, theft of vehicles, should every persons DNA be taken at birth??? eventually there would be a huge database that could be crossmatched to help detect the attacker, obviously also in this day and age of free cross borders and immigration should every person have their DNA taken on entry to the uk?? i certainly think this would make things much easier for the police to convict terrorists and such like, it would cost a huge amount but surely worth it.....would even create more jobs!

 

Are you proposing that this will stop crime or solve crime?

[AdamSmith]

Are you proposing that this will stop crime or solve crime?

 

i am saying it could help do both to a greater extent than is the case now and in some cases a far greater margin of certainty.

[ronthenekred]

i am saying it could help do both to a greater extent than is the case now and in some cases a far greater margin of certainty.

 

So at birth you're assuming guilt before a crime is committed? How can it help to stop a crime? A new born has no thought process to be able to argue the process by which you're defending.

 

Take DNA at birth and it'll stop a crime.

 

Remove penis at birth and it'll stop rape.

[AdamSmith]

So at birth you're assuming guilt before a crime is committed? How can it help to stop a crime? A new born has no thought process to be able to argue the process by which you're defending.

 

Take DNA at birth and it'll stop a crime.

 

Remove penis at birth and it'll stop rape.

 

dont be stupid the only reason i said DNA taken at birth is because thats the time where its guaranteed to be taken and is unavoidable if it was law...ok ok before you start yes i know home births, hidden births etc etc but the vast majority are born in a hospital ok?, i never said guilty at birth:loopy: it must reduce crime to some extent as everyone would know their DNA was on a register! only civil lib lot and the guilty would have a problem with it:roll:

[Obelix]

dont be stupid the only reason i said DNA taken at birth is because thats the time where its guaranteed to be taken and is unavoidable if it was law...ok ok before you start yes i know home births, hidden births etc etc but the vast majority are born in a hospital ok?, i never said guilty at birth:loopy: it must reduce crime to some extent as everyone would know their DNA was on a register! only civil lib lot and the guilty would have a problem with it:roll:

 

You seem to like lumping the civil liberties lot in and treating them as guilty. Thanks for that. Would you care to explain why I'm guilty of something, whatever that is?

 

Or are you happy to dispense with civil liberties since you clearly hold them in contempt and can you detail which of them you wouldn't like to apply to you since they are so tiresome...