Something We Can All Agree On
This is something which we can all agree with:
DNA fingerprints of people who have not been convicted of a crime should be removed from the national database, Britain’s most influential ethical think-tank recommended yesterday.
In a report that is highly critical of the Government’s approach to forensic use of genetic information, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics found it unacceptable for the police to keep DNA records from victims of crime, witnesses and suspects who are later acquitted or never charged.
The panel of scientists, philosophers, criminologists and lawyers also urged ministers to drop proposals to allow the police to take and store DNA from people suspected of less serious crimes, such as minor traffic offences and littering.
It rejected the idea of storing the genetic profile of every citizen, and recommended changes to the way that DNA evidence is presented in court…
The report said that DNA should be stored only if there is a conviction, as happens in most European countries. An exception would be made only for serious violent and sexual offences.
Samples could still be taken from people who are arrested and stored until the police investigation was complete. Without a conviction, however, samples would have to be destroyed. Victims or witnesses who agreed to have their DNA stored should be allowed to remove it at any time. (The Times)
In a report that is highly critical of the Government’s approach to forensic use of genetic information, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics found it unacceptable for the police to keep DNA records from victims of crime, witnesses and suspects who are later acquitted or never charged.
The panel of scientists, philosophers, criminologists and lawyers also urged ministers to drop proposals to allow the police to take and store DNA from people suspected of less serious crimes, such as minor traffic offences and littering.
It rejected the idea of storing the genetic profile of every citizen, and recommended changes to the way that DNA evidence is presented in court…
The report said that DNA should be stored only if there is a conviction, as happens in most European countries. An exception would be made only for serious violent and sexual offences.
Samples could still be taken from people who are arrested and stored until the police investigation was complete. Without a conviction, however, samples would have to be destroyed. Victims or witnesses who agreed to have their DNA stored should be allowed to remove it at any time. (The Times)
Spot on. The DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime must not be kept in a database. I’ve written on this before.
The only acceptable thing to do with that sort of DNA database is to only permanently keep the DNA of those who have been convicted of a crime. A case could be made for keeping those who were prosecuted but acquitted by a jury for a limited period, depending on the severity of the charge. But for those who are not even charged with a crime, their DNA should not even be added to the DNA database. Once that investigation is over, their DNA should be removed from all records. Anything else is a perversion of justice.
Agree with you so far, however I see no justification for keeping the DNA of those convicted after a conviction is “spent”.
For me, it would depend on the crime committed and the individual’s history [such as number of crimes committed].
I’m not convinced that removing the DNA after the conviction is spent is a good idea.
I stand braced for the inevitable onslaught of disagreement, but cogent though your argument is, (and I mean that) I nonetheless have to disagree with you.
The grounds upon which I do so are simple and, I dare say, wearily familiar to someone whose stance on this issue has been consistent, to say the least.
Imagine for a moment, that a serious offence of some – indeed any – description, not necessarily of a sexual nature, has been committed in police area A, which just happens to be in the north of England. The hypothetical crime in this instance is one of such severity, that a large scale police operation is launched in a bid to trace the offender; an operation which involves the deployment of significant police resources at huge expense.
Meanwhile, three months earlier, the offender had been arrested on suspicion of comitting a relatively trivial offence – lets settle on interfering with a motor vehicle – in police area B which is in the south of England.
Let’s also suppose that the ‘offender’ in police area B had not been prosecuted in respect of the alleged vehicle crime, but that, in line with the law as it currently stands, his or her DNA was taken and stored on the DNA database.
Given that the offender left some sort of bodily fluid; saliva, blood or semen for example, or even shed skin cells or hair and left them at the scene of his crime, within hours the identity of the offender would be known.
This would result in at least two favourable outcomes.
1. The offender would be identified and (hopefully) arrested much more quickly than would have been the case had his (her) DNA not been on record, thereby also saving the expense of a lengthy and possibly fruitless enquiry and, possibly more importantly…
2. His early identification and arrest could prevent the offender committing other, similar offences before he was eventually arrested.
I am far from blind to the invasion of liberty inherent in my argument, but I have to say that on balance, the prevention of crime, or failing that, its early detection bring me down on the side of the law as it now stands.
I have now donned my tin hat and battened down the hatches in anticipation of a sound kicking…
That makes sense Anonymous – and thank you for a very well though-out comment. But it ignores the very simple problem of the criminalisation of everyone included on the database. It also ignores the fact that it is yet another step along the way towards a Big Brother police state. Why should an innocent person’s DNA be kept on a police database? There is no justification for it. As much as it may help police work, it is too much of an infringement on our rights to be allowed to continue.
And of course, the final part of your last sentence neatly sums up where we part company on this subject.
In agreeing to disagree with each other, I suspect we may not have heard the last of it…
Leave your response!
Blue Idea TV
Blogroll
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Categories
Archives
Text size
My Network
Advertisements
The Blue Idea theme by hawesWeb Productions, an edited version of the Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung