in thinking the dna database should not be removed

[ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana]

i prefer the police having a massive dna database don't you?

hmm, eliminate him form enquiries sounds so wrong in that context.

sample was taken so that they could tell whether they had found criminals dna on the car/bits of glass/etc

The fact that some people who were not charged have their DNA on file is a deterrent to stop them from commiting future crimes no? It makes the world a safer place.

"what issues should I be considering?"

Civil liberties.... living in a free society means being allowed to live privately, not having biological data catalogued & filed away as if we are all potential offenders.

I think everybodys DNA should be on a database.

It would be very useful for future, malign, governments to have everyone's DNA on file. A dictator's wet dream.

FabbyChic does that include children? would you want them to be on a database.

Chickens, I don't understand what you mean. Probably me being thick but could you elaborate please? I don't really understand what the problem with it is but that's likely me not understanding the issues with it...

oh for goodness sake most people on the dna data base are not rapists murderers or terrorists. they are young people, kids under 18, black and asian people.

it goes against our human rights to have our dna held, i mean how much more personal do you want it to get

So MrsRuffallo, you agree that only people convicted of crimes should be on the database, not people eliminated from enquiries, found not guilty or not even charged?

Because as silverfrog says, currently all of those people are on the database. The youngest was a baby.

Because it's all about the control of a population maz, just how much power should a police force be handed on a plate?

Should DNA be taken at birth?

And we might as well GPS tracking devices under their skin as well, to make sure everybody's safe you understand.

I've often wondered how overtly controlling regimes like national socialism, Stalins/Maos communism, or the Stasi in East Germany would have made use of DNA and tracking devices.

I don't understand either. Civil liberties? Really?

"I dont think everyone should be DNA tested but I think if you're arrested then your DNA should stay on the database."

With respect, this just doesn't make any sense. People are arrested when they haven't done anything wrong. It should either be conviction, or everyone. (IMO only on conviction). I don't want to live in a country where you have human rights unless a policeman thinks you look a bit dodgy.

Casserole, I guess I mean that it would be potentially possible to accuse someone of a crime, with dna evidence being the clincher, even if they hadn't done it. And they wouldn't be able to really defend themselves. Like I said, I read a lot of crime novels. Ahem.

But we send our children to school. Isn't that where control starts? And even earlier.

Why is having our DNA on file anymore invasive than the conditioning we receive day in, day out?

Genuinely curious and love being educated!

If these people have been committed of a crime then their race or age is irrelevent

Do people on this thread have store cards, loyalty cards, credit cards?

Because they give a hell of a lot of information out about you.

Chickens - the information about your DNA that is on the database wouldn't allow anyone to "make" DNA to put at a crime scene. Not with currently-available technology, anyway. They don't keep the actual biological sample, just information about it.

The problem with keeping everyones DNA on file is that it could be misused. It could be sold to companies. It could be used to police laws which did not exist when the database was created. It could be used to support a police or military dictatorship.

Governments should keep the minimum amount of information needed about their citizens, not the maximum they can manage without the citizens rioting in disgust.

"Just curious, why are people so anti it? On face value I think a DNA database is a good thing, what issues should I be considering?"

There's a myriad of issues at play.
To begin with I'd have issues with regards to civil liberties and human rights. Part of being a citizen is that you have certain obligations and certain rights. One of those rights is bodily integrity and until a citizen has done something criminal to forfeit those rights I fail to see any justification for any government to infringe on those rights,.

From a practical point of view there are other issues I'd have.
Firstly there may be an issue with cross contamination or poor storage issues, which while they would be easily rectified at trial stage with expert and more detailed analysis could lead to a lot of stress and the ruined lives of completely innocent people.

As for the protection of this data, how much would you trust the government to store this data in a responsible way? How often have we heard of lost files and data security fuck ups from a host of different governments?

My main issue is that it would simply lead to unjustifiablly lazy and retrospective police work. At the moment the system has a certain logic to it.The police work a case and based on circumstances surrounding the case they begin to view certain people as suspects. If the police have reasons to suspect person X and following questioning etc they DNA test him and there's a match at the crime scene then they are buiding a case based on more than simply DNA. If however they simply test the scene and find a match then rather than using the DNA to confirm their suspicions they will now be working backwards and trying to build the case to fit their suspect.
Never underestimate the danger of lazy police work.

"Just curious, why are people so anti it? On face value I think a DNA database is a good thing, what issues should I be considering?"

There's a myriad of issues at play.
To begin with I'd have issues with regards to civil liberties and human rights. Part of being a citizen is that you have certain obligations and certain rights. One of those rights is bodily integrity and until a citizen has done something criminal to forfeit those rights I fail to see any justification for any government to infringe on those rights,.

From a practical point of view there are other issues I'd have.
Firstly there may be an issue with cross contamination or poor storage issues, which while they would be easily rectified at trial stage with expert and more detailed analysis could lead to a lot of stress and the ruined lives of completely innocent people.

As for the protection of this data, how much would you trust the government to store this data in a responsible way? How often have we heard of lost files and data security fuck ups from a host of different governments?

My main issue is that it would simply lead to unjustifiablly lazy and retrospective police work. At the moment the system has a certain logic to it.The police work a case and based on circumstances surrounding the case they begin to view certain people as suspects. If the police have reasons to suspect person X and following questioning etc they DNA test him and there's a match at the crime scene then they are buiding a case based on more than simply DNA. If however they simply test the scene and find a match then rather than using the DNA to confirm their suspicions they will now be working backwards and trying to build the case to fit their suspect.
Never underestimate the danger of lazy police work.

apologies, don't know why that posted twice

I genuinely don't understand which of my human rights or civil liberties are at risk. How would my liberty be diminished by a nationwide DNA database?

Chickens - I guess so, though surely DNA will form only one portion of the evidence base - if you could prove, for example, that you were miles away at the time of the crime, that would surely still be valid? And in most cases all the DNA will do is show a probability that it was you. Not a "one in the world" conclusive "proof". At least I don't think so.

But I am open to being proved wrong!

Some of the arguments against:
? as stated above, tailor-made for an unforeseen malign government (as we know from the way the Nazis used census data when they invaded France and Holland, never mind within Germany)
? say each DNA profile is "one in a million". With a population of 60 million, you'd expect 60 people in the country to match a given profile. (Don't know actual probability, but this is how you have to calculate.)
? fingerprints can be transferred, but it requires a lot of mucking around and could only be done deliberately; DNA gets smeared everywhere, all the time. It can be transferred by shaking hands, touching a desk that someone else has touched, or most amusingly by working in a DNA swab factory. All those swine flu ads about where your snot goes... There goes your DNA too.

I think holding DNA of unconvicted persons goes against the whole "innocnet until proven guilty" concept.

What's next? Profile people according to who might be a criminal? Profile children? Then take action before they commit a crime?

It's a slippery slope.

But we are not living under a dictatorship. We are secure in our civil liberties, England is is a safe place to live, which is why so many people want to build their lives here!

I am happy for the DNA database to be handled in a a sensitive way, I have no issues with my personal freedom being affected by it at all.

Should we stop fingerprints too then?

mazfah, no no and no

why should your dna be held if you have not been convicted of an offence?

answers please