WTF Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 it is only the crooks that don't want it, and the uncaught crooks are the ones shouting loudest along with the anti establishment we want anarchy faction. Oh yes that is a highly accurate description on the 17 Human Rights Judges from all over Europe who rejected the UK database, and most members of Amnesty Internation, Liberty etc etc. yes, but it is the wankers that bought it to them in the first place. they have known about the DNA database for years and how it works. now someone has asked the question in typical old fuddy duddy dementure they have come up with the most unhelpful conclusion. there is NO common sense ever out of EU wrinklies who just want the UK to be a fucked up dumping ground for criminal immigrants. they don't want us having the abillity to identify them and send them back to mainland europe. if we lost our imported somalian, nigerian, and eastern block crooks our own figures would fall quite a bit. oh and pikeys too, to be sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Well, frankly I'm delighted that our civil liberties are in the hands of those judges, and not the idiots on here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wake Up Call Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 I don't get it with some people - rapists and murderers have been caught via this DNA sample method. How can you argue against that? I have never heard of a misuse of DNA data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 i think tugger breeding could be considered a misuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 In a perfect society we would not need to, but we DONT live in a perfect society. IMO if a person knows that, if they where to commit lets say a robbery and they knew that if they left no finger prints or wore a mask etc, the chances of identifying or convicting them would be slim. They may make that choice. But say that they knew that they would only have to leave a hair, scrap of skin or spittle and that’s their identity would be known. Would they maybe think twice. It may seem like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, but if that’s what is needed to make society a better and safer place to live, then so be it. I will agree with you there, society is far from perfect. I understand now what you mean, but thinking about it I cannot really see a great deal of potential for deterrence. DNA detection is not completely accurate and given the motivations behind crime such a burglary I would be surprised if there was anything more than a slight level of deterrence. But then we also have to specific about the types of crime that could be deterred. Murders, assaults, and violent crimes are from what I gather far more spur of the moment acts, therefore, the deterrent level is very low. I am surprised you talk about deterrence though, as I can see it speeding up and increasing the level of convictions if DNA can be quickly associated to a person HOWEVER I have no desire to see convictions for any crimes given the consequences that are custodial sentences. But that is my view. I attach a great deal of importance to personal freedoms and the requirement that people should have no intereference or authority from any person or body that cannot justify that authority well. Now here the State thinks that it should be allowed to hold information on people. I see this as no different so some stranger holding information on me. By continuing to allow the State to hold the details you are affording the state an even greater insight and level of control into your lives without thinking enough about why it the state believes it does not need your permission to destroy such personal information and why your personal information should be used when you have nothing to do with the crime. From my perspective of my politics it is an even greater travesty to have the cause of much crime take away and hold information very personal to me to use to catch the criminals the State creates. How ironic. Let's go all the way then. Fingerprint, photograph & dna sample all citizens - and put a gps chip in each at birth, just to be safe. All the fuzz then has to do is wait for crime to come to them - instead of doing some good old fashioned police work and serving the community. Exactly, sod this DNA stuff, lets go for the GPS stuff because we will be sure that the benevolent State will watch us constantly just in case some of the bad guys want to commit a crime. And it will cut down crime so what is the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 No method is one hundred percent reliable all the time, but I bet 100 years ago there was no one moaning about fingerprints, people where probably just happy that the Police etc had another method to find those responsible for committing crime. Again I ask you, how does your DNA info being stored in a database affect your human rights? ohhh wait a second I hear you say you could be cloned..too much Star Trek/Star Wars !!! I think the Police should have as many tools as possible in their fight against crime. Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 8, 2008 Author Share Posted December 8, 2008 I think the Police should have as many tools as possible That's one thing they're not short of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 hahaha fair enough For example, a few years ago my car was broken into in Onchan, by an Irish national whom was visiting the Island, luckily I caught him in the act !!! well to be honest I arrived back at my car and he must have seen me and tried to hide behind a small wall, he forgot that his feet where sticking out still, so I called the Police and they came and took a small sample, arrested him and took him away, he cried innocent, but its seems that he left his DNA on the broken glass off my car window. So if I had not interrupted him in his Robin Hood antics, Do you think he would have ever been caught, In my opinion i doubt it unless the Police had access to a DNA Data base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 hahaha fair enough For example, a few years ago my car was broken into in Onchan, by an Irish national whom was visiting the Island, luckily I caught him in the act !!! well to be honest I arrived back at my car and he must have seen me and tried to hide behind a small wall, he forgot that his feet where sticking out still, so I called the Police and they came and took a small sample, arrested him and took him away, he cried innocent, but its seems that he left his DNA on the broken glass off my car window. So if I had not interrupted him in his Robin Hood antics, Do you think he would have ever been caught, In my opinion i doubt it unless the Police had access to a DNA Data base. And you are probably right, he may never have been caught. It is a trade-off. To what degree are the privacies and human rights of innocent people compromised in the process of catching criminals. I don't think they should be compromised at all if you are innocent, however, you think that they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 The question of "How does the storing of DNA Data compromise your Human rights" has still not been answered. Would you rather that the UK Government did not store your Car License details, your Car Tax and Insurance details, ohh hold on your Donor Card Details? Are all these infringing your human rights? It just seems to me that those who are shouting the loudest are those that really have something to fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Jack what you are going on about has nothing to do with the issue under consideration. The police can collect DNA from a crime scene. They can keep it, they can put it onto a database. If they have a suspect they can obtain their DNA and compare it against this sample etc etc. They can keep the DNA of the guilty. They can even collect the DNA of the innocent for a specific reason and check it against the database. But once they have finished doing all this; they can't go - oh lets keep this DNA supplied by an innocent person, just in case they commit a crime in the future. Using the DNA of an inncoent person to solve a current, crimes: fine Storing the DNA of an innocent person, just in case for the future: not OK. Many of the examples of the DNA database are like the first example, not the second - the judges specifically asked for evidence about where an innocent person's DNA stored on the database had been used to expose a later crime and those arguing for the Database were unable to convincingly provide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 It has everything to do with the thread, the whole thread has been about DNA testing and whether the Police should have the right to store DNA on a central Database. I am arguing in favor off this. I was simply replying to LDV and asking him to explain why The Police holding yours or my DNA (I presume we are both classed as innocent) is contravening my/our Human rights, I also included a couple of examples where personal data is already stored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 The question of "How does the storing of DNA Data compromise your Human rights" has still not been answered. Would you rather that the UK Government did not store your Car License details, your Car Tax and Insurance details, ohh hold on your Donor Card Details? Are all these infringing your human rights? It just seems to me that those who are shouting the loudest are those that really have something to fear. Why don't you read a summary of the judgement rather than spouting off. If you don't understand the issue that the state should maintain as few records on its citizens as possible. That citizens have a right to privacy and a presumption of innocence by the state etc etc they you must be pretty out of touch with the legal traditions of the Enlightenment. Your DNA isn't just yours: 50% of it is your parents and siblings. Your health, your race can all be approximated at from this data. If you think this is a simple issue you are mistaken. Highlights Given the nature and the amount of personal information contained in cellular samples, their retention per se had to be regarded as interfering with the right to respect for the private lives of the individuals concerned. In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention. The Court reiterated that, in this context, it was essential to have clear, detailed rules governing the scope and application of measures, as well as minimum safeguards The Court accepted that the retention of fingerprint and DNA information pursued a legitimate purpose, namely the detection, and therefore, prevention of crime. The Court indicated that the domestic law had to afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such use of personal data as could be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention. As regards, more particularly, cellular samples, most of the Contracting States allowed these materials to be taken in criminal proceedings only from individuals suspected of having committed offences of a certain minimum gravity. In the great majority of the Contracting States with functioning DNA databases, samples and DNA profiles derived from those samples were required to be removed or destroyed either immediately or within a certain limited time after acquittal or discharge. A restricted number of exceptions to this principle were allowed by some Contracting States. The Court noted that England, Wales and Northern Ireland appeared to be the only jurisdictions within the Council of Europe to allow the indefinite retention of fingerprint and DNA material of any person of any age suspected of any recordable offence. The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 but you have still not told me how it affects your "human rights" by being on this database. As for spouting off, am i not only exerting my opinion. Seems its ok for you to exert yours, but mine is only spouting off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 the snag being that 'innocent' can mean not done anything wrong, OR as is likely, not convicted of doing something wrong due to lack of evidence. just because you are not guilty by court verdict doesn't mean you didn't actually do the crime. if the police /CPS are happy enough to take you to court you can bet you should be there. it would in fact work in your favour to have your DNA kept because it could stop the police taking you away every time a crime that fits your MO turns up. if they get DNA that isn't yours they won't waste your time and theirs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.