[cs_33]

[cs_44]

I can see the benefits of the data base, however i dont feel comfortable with the idea unless we can garuntee that they'll be kept safe. If the database is created the government may decide to make it compulsary for people to put their DNA on the data base. This i dont agree with. It takes away poeple rights if they're forced onto the data base. i feel people should have a choice as to whether they want to do this and therefore an age needs to be determined at which people are given the opportunity to choose. A baby of a few hours old or a child of five or six cannot understand the implication of having a DNA sample on a data baase and i dont feel the parent should be able to make this choice for them it is up to the individual.
also the idea of a reduction in crime rates may be true but will it not cause criminals to become smarter and adapt to the risk of being caught? what if criminals gained access to the database? could it lead to an innocent person being convicted because authorities rely on the database? The database would be very helpful when used to help with crimes, and there will propbably be a decrease in crimes committed, but can it be used for petty crimes or will that be a waste of money? When do we use it?

[cs_t1]

I think most people feel that the decision about this is beyond their control and not part of the UK democratic process. It certainly is sufficiently large issue to warrent a public debate and referendum. But, judging by the way the government is steamrollering the 42 detention law through parliament, it does leave me concerned.

[cs_t2]

All this tends to make me look to Sci Fi for inspiration. In the film Gatacca the DNA of every citizen is on file and people are regularly checked and discriminated against due to their DNA. THe film also looks at the possible future of 'designer babies' but thats another topic....

So 30,000 a month are getting added on to the database - thats about a third of a million a year and so every ten years about 3 million poeple. Without intervention this rate will no doubt increase and it might not be too long until we have a blanket - sample at birth policy - which is not too different to the nightmare of big brother in Gatacca.

'Its for the good of the country', 'innocent people need not fear' they'll say. This is despite the fact that DNA samples are taken from innocent people who are arrested and then released without charge. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

I think we need to be really careful - what seems like a good idea now might not always be good in the future.

[cs_38]

On the subject of the innocent being falsely accused and the police just relying on DNA evidence, i think that is very unlikely because the fact that your DNA is at the scene of a crime will only ever prove that you were there at some point in time. They would still rely on traditional policing methods of questioning people and such, to actually prove who did it.

Also, as was mentioned earlier, if everyone in the UK had their DNA in the database, then there would be less mix-ups between people with very similar DNA patterns.

However, the reliability of DNA fingerprinting depends on how much you trust the government, because we would be vulnerable with all our DNA on their database. So i think the idea of DNA fingerprinting is a good one, but only if it is implemented perfectly.

[rutc_s15]

cs_38, did you mean that there would be more mix-ups (not less as you wrote) between people of similar DNA? More people entered onto a system means there are more DNA codes and so it is actually more likely that there will be mix-ups as the number of people goes up.

It is true that old police methods would still have to be used (indeed, it's not been possible to convict people purely with evidence from DNA profiling). However, there is another problem with the use of DNA profiling, it could end up inadvertently making investigations much slower. If there are more mix-ups due to the database then time is wasted clearing those up. In addition, DNA profiling can pick up DNA that is comparatively quite old. If every person who has been at the crime scene in the last week, if not more, has to be questioned then an investigation is slowed down horribly. This inefficiency could be expensive. It also means that the attention of the police might be distracted from other areas which might provide useful clues about the case.

Also, as far as the database existing is concerned, even if you trust the government itself not to abuse the details, there is still the problem that our government has a history of losing things that are theoretically confidential. (Including tax returns, passport applications and information from the intelligence services)

[rutc_s15]

(Ant)

how many times in recent months have we heard the news that another top secret document has been left on a train, or a laptop has been stolen. Given how institutions, including the home office, have treated data they already have on us do we dare give them more to lose?

DNA can be very useful in solving crimes, but the use of this new technology seems to have precipitated a lack of common sense. people who have be mismatched are assumed guilty and then the police will seek to prove this true, like any other evidence DNA should be treated with a pinch of salt, motive and ability should still be established, as it does currently have to according to law. The creation of this database will not be the magical end to crime in this country, smart criminals will just have another thing to look out for.

[rutc_s20]

I don't personally see much of a problem with everyone's DNA being put on the National Database. I think that it would allow for victims to be convicted more efficiently and victims of disasters such as the Tsunami to be identified. I can see why people are concerned about the issue of privacy however, if you've never committed a crime then really you don't have to worry. Also, there's the possibility that two people's DNA can match but you can't get convicted on DNA alone and it is a very rare occurence.

[rutc_t1]

couple of points / questions!
rutc_s8 and others, there is a difference between storing a DNA profile and storing information from gene testing......we are in debate only about the former.

I would like the reassurance that if a Tsunami hits me whilst holidaying on a sunny beach(!), my DNA profile could be readily used to identify my body for the 'closure' / anxiety of relatives! However, I'm not sure I want a national database that indicated from gene testing that I had a very high risk of early heart disease, in case my insurance company gets access to it and puts up my premium!!!!

I don't like the current situation of if you are arrested yet innocent, and shown to be, your DNA profile still remains on record. Much fairer that everyone's is there on record. I could then be declared innocent (because I'm very law abiding!) very readily!

Could we spin out a few scenarios of what would be possible for someone getting hold of my DNA profile, so that I can understand your privacy / rights concerns?

Would DNA profiles be a useful biometric for passports?

If there were a truly everybody national DNA database, what measures would we need in place to ensure appropriate use?

[cs_39]

The idea that DNA fingerprinting is fantastic for developments in solving crimes is undeniabe but my biggest fear (that i feel has already been mentioned but i would like to personally comment on) is what the innocent are having to sacrifice for this progress. A qoute that i found when looking up the idea was, DNA fingerprinting "infringes on the rights and privacy of the innocent". I beleive this qoute highlights my point, as lets say all children were forced to have their DNA fingerprint taken when they have no previous criminal record etc. , to me they have done nothing to make them have to have this done. The idea arose in class from a recent statement made by a police official that maybe at birth this process should be done which is something i beleive to be morally wrong as if the process must be done then it should be done knowingly as this is very important to that new individual who one day will have to deal with this situation when we are long gone so i think this attitude is very short sighted! Classes were also going to be targeted supposidly ( lower class boys etc. ) which to me raises another question; how is this system going to be monitored to firstly avoid groups of people being specificaly targeted and secondly how to ensure that EVERYONE is on the database as it would be so easy for people to slip the net and then crimes may go unsolved completley contradicting the original idea. I also read that someone noted the lack of tight controls within the government. Would you personally want to give such imortant information to a government that leaves documents on the train? Quality control with the actual companies who conduct the testing has already been highlighted in NY last year in August causing wrong convictions to perhaps develop from this database/ the process in the future. Criminals in the future may also adapt to this type of evidence being left at a crime scene then what happens to all this information? DNA sequencing may also develop from this in the future and that seriously worries me!
I can see both sides of the argument however as i know if a close relative etc. was murdered i would want the criminal to be convicted. Although i do worry about what is done with all the information......

[cs_36]

I think that there's no problem with the government or police having our DNA. We have so many other things stored about us and we are caught on CCTV so many times a day, so where's the problem in having someone know our DNA? I understand that it could be seen as an invasion of our privacy, but shouldn't we think about the bigger picture here? The fact is lots of crimes can be solved so easily and surely that's enough to allow DNA fingerprinting?

[cs_48]

The very idea of a national DNA database is a highly offensive proposition. It is a pathetic progresion in the governments seemingly relentless campaign to criminalise law abiding citizens. It is a clear violation of fundamental human rights and liberties. It completely contradicts a Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights stating that everyone has a clear and defined right to "liberty". Furthermore such a database would cost vast sums of public money that could be far better spent. The money should be invested in the prevention of crime at its roots - in the eradication of poverty and dissatisfaction. The eventual reliance of police on DNA evidence is also a frightening prospect leading to the decline and neglect of traditional crime detection methods and a loss of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, not only is the notion of a DNA database a morally abhorrent and finanically impossible proposition but it is completely impractical. The DNA finger printing would surely have to be extended to every person who entered the country? This would simply not be compatible with the rights and liberties of forgein countries. Finally, the idea of a DNA database would surely pave the way to the use of the sequenced human genome to predict those most likely to predict crime. A truly terrifying prospect seen only in fictional, dictorial dystopias.

[cs_46]

richmond just got rinsed!!!!

[cs_33]

[cs_46]

I agree with rutc_s20, i dont see any problem with having my DNA on a database as long as if its going to help reduce crime. Having a new generation of childrens DNA put on to a database would be benificial when they reach adolescence and when the small majority commit crimes they will be solved within a couple of days/weeks rather than months/years. Hvaing a whole generations dna on a database will help indentify the criminals quicker and will stop them re-comitting.

Whoop whoop!!