Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 IConcur with Jimbms, good reading Albert. Do you not find that the case of one persons human right can affect the human rights of others in society? You don’t have the database and so a criminal is not caught, human right affected. In regards to your innocent & guilty issue, every guilty person was once innocent until they committed the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Our society is based on a presumption of innocence and that guilt has to be based on a test that is beyond reasonable doubt. That means the guilty will get off - WTF really doesn't like that - I see it as a fundamental part of our rights. It is worse to convict an innocent man than to let off a guilty one. Societies which upset that balance tend to go bad. Of course I can only use the word tend, but like Albert I'm not so convinced that governments will all be well behaved in the future. We live in a pluralistic society and it is good that people fight to maintain liberty - they don't always win, but they also don't always loose. The current legislation has been struck down - the government will go away and redraft it. A DNA database will remain - more than likely it will only contain the details of the guilty and people over a certain age who have been arrested, but not found guilty, of a serious crime, who will have their data stored probably for a time limited period - 10 years or whatever. Some of the guilty will be caught, touch wood more than previously. Would the world be a better place with more draconian legislation, some people are arguing yes, while I am in favour of liberty and am doubtful that the increased size of the database will make a significant difference. I have to admit I am sceptical of human rights and universal rights being portrayed as eternal or sacrosanct. My attitude is that society chooses to treat people in a certain way; that choice is entirely voluntary, but is done in an enlightenned way that sees the benefits of treating people with respect, privacy and dignity. The state isn't the final arbitor, nor does it pass inviolate legislation. Individuals join together in communities and work to achieve stability. Stasiland, with its surveillance culture, isn't where I wish to live. Governments bugger things up, and can get things wrong - I'd rather give them as little rope as possible. I don't really care if its defined as a Human Rights Issue or not, I don't want the government storing everyone's personal data just in case a tiny proportion of them do wrong; Governments also do wrong, and I prefer a presumption of innocence. Oh and one other thing - as most crimes are carried out by people who don't think through the consequences of their actions this is unlikely to affect crime rates much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Chinahand, I would also love to live in a society like the one you described, but its honestly never going to be like that. The question finally comes down to what it the greater human right. Privacy or living in a safer enviroment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Oh and one other thing - as most crimes are carried out by people who don't think through the consequences of their actions this is unlikely to affect crime rates much. To put it in perspective they will have to remove about 800K entries out of about 4.3 million - 20%. As these are innocent folks (i.e. they were not convicted) and a glance at the re-offending rate indicates it's going to make very little difference. I like the message it sends out although I'm not stupid enough to think that these entries might not just re-appear elsewhere - you know, a disaster recovery backup site or similar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Chinahand, I would also love to live in a society like the one you described, but its honestly never going to be like that. The question finally comes down to what it the greater human right. Privacy or living in a safer enviroment Yes Jack, but what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily agree with you that the enviroment will be safer - I don't think it will affect crime levels much, being draconian may increase conviction rates, but with an increased risk of injustice - either directly through discrimination against people innocently on the register, or via the law of unintended consequences as people with intentions both good and bad find ways to exploit the information held. To say outright - stopping innocent people's DNA being held will make the country SIGNIFICANTLY worse is too much of a stretch. It may do nothing, it may actually make it better. I need beyond a reasonable doubt to be willing to hand these powers over to the state and we are a long way from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 To me the issue is more about living in a safer society and so I seem to be able to allow a greater degree of laws. I still just dont see how it affects the day to day life that i live, I don't think that not holding DNA will make the Country worse, just that holding it will make the Country better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 To me the issue is more about living in a safer society and so I seem to be able to allow a greater degree of laws. I still just dont see how it affects the day to day life that i live, I don't think that not holding DNA will make the Country worse, just that holding it will make the Country better. I imagine that you do think a compromise should be reached at some point between freedoms and public safety. For instance, you could introduce capital punishment for all crimes, put CCTVs everywhere, electronically tag the population, etc., and this will have a marked effect on the level of crime. Therefore, is it just the fact that you see this a small concession of your rights or freedoms? Obviously you wouldn't want the extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 exactly, I just seem more willing to give up a little off what we may or maynot call "Human Rights" to live a safer and in my opinion better life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Why should those arrested and not charged (and who have a sample taken) be treated any differently from those who have never been arrested? It's either a) no-one on the list; b) those convicted of certain classes of offence; or c) everyone on the list. In the case of the latter I simply don't trust the security/management of the various agencies to retain and administer the data of those who have not done anything wrong. I'm not in favour of the former so it seems the debate to me should be about deciding which class of *offender* should be subject to DNA retention. Justifying the targeting of DNA retention by focusing it on all those arrested (including those subsequently released without charge) or anyone convicted is somewhat lazy coppering - a bit like the Stop and Search laws implemented disproprtionately against black teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 exactly, I just seem more willing to give up a little off what we may or maynot call "Human Rights" to live a safer and in my opinion better life. Finally, we have him, the clue may be in the detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Not how I see it, I see it as a willing sacrifice for a better life. But I agree that the data would have to be secure and not used incorrectly, but thats a whole different conversation. Jehovah, what the fook are you on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I think he means that you're posting under a different name to that which you have been using in recent times. Guess what, he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 /yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Security should only trump liberty in times of war, and liberty always returned to trump security after a war. We are not at war. For those that think adding the innocent to the DNA database will make a major difference, go on a maths course, this is simply not true. If it was true we would have already seen a significant statistical difference with the amount of innocents already on there - and we don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Meoff Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 We may not be at war in the conventional sense, but we are in conflict against organised crime and criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.