The law on DNA has to change. Currently the police in England and Wales can take a sample from anyone they arrest for a recordable offence. The sample, and the DNA profile that results from analysis (20 numbers, plus two letters representing chromosomes) are kept on the national DNA database, for ever.You’re right, that does need to change.
And for once, the ECHR helped us, rather than hindered us:
But in its judgment in S and Marper v UK at the end of 2008 the European Court of Human Rights ruled out the "blanket and indiscriminate" policy of permanent retention…And now…
…the government now proposes change in its crime and security bill, due to come before the House of Lords next week. If it's passed, although the DNA profiles of offenders will still be retained permanently, those of innocent people – arrested once, but never convicted of anything – will be destroyed after six years.Not good enough.
But that's too little for the Conservatives, who want DNA profiles of innocent people retained only after arrest for violent and sex offences, and then only for three years initially.Still not good enough.
The Liberal Democrats go even further, wanting only the DNA of convicted offenders kept.Aha!
I knew if I waited long enough, there’d be a Lib Dem policy I could fully support…
Needless to say, little Carl is still sucking government (censored):
The government, though, is in no mood for compromise. Alan Johnson may even make DNA an election issue. I hope he does.So what? So would locking us all up 24/7/365.
According to one argument, the largest possible database, or at least a large one including everyone who's come into serious contact with the police, will have the greatest use for investigators.
Anyway, the Human Genetics Commission was surely right in its report Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear? last year to ask government to consider funding research into the forensic utility of DNA – including into the possible benefits of novel uses of DNA evidence.Was it? You might think so, you greasy-cheeked little weasel, but you merely prove that you are the government’s man, through and through…
My fear is that limiting the retention of DNA unnecessarily now may hobble a technology that could be a very powerful tool for identifying offenders, eliminating innocent suspects and protecting human rights in 30 or 50 years' time.Eh..?
It’s going to protect our human rights, so long as we give up our human right not to be considered guilty from birth? That’s pretty retarded…
The growth of the DNA database over the last 10 years has been a brave experiment…..for a brave new world?
The best reason to back the government, though, is that civil liberties concerns about DNA, now almost conventional wisdom, are abstract and overstated.According to you and all the other authoritarian control freaks…
What's the actual fear?People like you, Carl…
…much queasiness about storing DNA profiles is based on a vague perception that they contain something ineffably "intimate" that can't, so needn't, be explained. But such higher superstition is no basis for sensible policy: retaining DNA profiles does not meddle with anyone's soul.I’m fairly sure a soul is something you don’t need to worry yourself about…
Metaphysics aside, being on the DNA database takes away no freedom (and yes, if the bill gets through, I'll go on it voluntarily).Good for you. But you don’t get to make the choice for me as well…
Lord Steyn was right to suggest that any human rights invasion is "very modest indeed".No, he wasn’t.
Against this, keeping even innocent people's DNA for six years is amply justified in order to fight crime.No, it isn’t.
Alan Johnson should take his case to the people.And if they tell you, loud and clear, to go forth and multiply, what then?
Longrider isn't too impressed with this joker either...
Raising the tax threshold to £10,000 is another LimpDumb policy I support.
ReplyDeletePity about all the rest, though.
I am very confused on these types of issues; freedom of the individual versus protection of the individual against crime.
ReplyDeleteI understand the abuse argument but not the theory that it takes away an individuals human rights per se. I hate any interference by the state into the lives of innocent people and we have got that now under Labour in abundance. However there are certain instances where benefits of state interference outweighs the right of the individual and to me this one of them. Attacking the DNA database should be redirected in efforts to ensure data is secure and safeguarded against abuse.
@Antisthenes
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that DNA evidence is considered to be infallible, but it isn't.
It is also relatively simple to collect and subsequently deposit another person's DNA at a crime scene.
Yup. The Lib Dems have their moments - they nicked the £10,000 idea off of UKIP, so UKIP just upped their offer to £11,500.
ReplyDeleteNBC, Nothing is infallible, other forensic evidence is also open to abuse and fallibility however that does not deter it's use in court, besides one would hope than one piece of evidence on it's own would be insufficient for a conviction.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with using DNA evidence when investigating a crime. There is no justification whatsoever for keeping the DNA of innocent people on the database. Quite apart from the civil liberties issues, there are practical downsides, too. An increase in false positives being the obvious.
ReplyDeleteAnd... Given the government's propensity to abuse every little bit of power it has, you can be sure that like airport scanners, this will be abused sooner or later once a critical mass is on the database. If there is the potential for abuse, sure as eggs is eggs, they will oblige. Best not to allow them to have it in the first place.
"Pity about all the rest, though."
ReplyDeleteIndeed.. :(
"However there are certain instances where benefits of state interference outweighs the right of the individual and to me this one of them. Attacking the DNA database should be redirected in efforts to ensure data is secure and safeguarded against abuse."
Well, Antithenes, Longrider's reply at 21:40 pretty much sums up the security of data angle, so I'll just remind you, on the 'benefits outweighing drawbacks' front, that the road tio hell is paved with good intentions.
And I'm not the property of the state, to be earmarked and tagged and recorded in a database like livestock, against the day I step out of line.
"...besides one would hope than one piece of evidence on it's own would be insufficient for a conviction."
One would also hope we'd never see a situation where a citizen's right to trial by jury was removed either. Whoops!
Put not your faith in the essential goodness of those in power. You are sure to be disappointed.
I have been persuaded by your arguments and agree innocent people should not have their DNA held on a database for any significant period of time. What persuaded me was Longrider pointing to the infringement of civil liberties "Quite apart from the civil liberties issues" and JuliaM pointing to the danger of the information being used as a means of control "Put not your faith in the essential goodness of those in power. You are sure to be disappointed".
ReplyDeleteThere is a moral to this if people are prepared to debate openly on issues then collective wisdom will prevail.
In our society today the left and fundamentalists have engineered a situation where they control what can be debated and what cannot. This blog essentially has been about a civil liberty if we are to preserve all our democracy and civil liberties then something has to be done to restore the right of freedom of speech.