Sunday Times this morning...

[RoyalWelsh]

I'm at work so don't have time to read the full article, but have read the part on the front page and my initial reaction was to be shocked.

DNA samples of those accused of rape are to be destroyed if they are found innocent.

I thought to myself, "well that is fair isn't it, if they are innocent then they shouldn't be kept on file, should they?" which was swiftly followed by "but it is often hard to prove rape, so perhaps they aren't innocent butcan't be proven guilty" IYSWIM?

My gut feeling is that, yes, if you are a man and falsely accused of rape, it can't be nice knowing that your DNA is on file somewhere. But if you didn't do it the first time, you aren't likely to do it again, IYSWIM, so there will be no need for their DNA to be used ever again, ever.

If an actual rapist is let off because it can't be proved they did it, then keeping their DNA on file can't be bad, can it?

I am well aware that keeping DNA is a human rights issue (or at least I think I am well aware) and tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel knowing that my (innocent) DNA was being kept somewhere.

Come on, MN, educate me please!

There is no reason to single out rape - it applies to all crime.

The holding of the DNA of innocent people has been ruled by Europe to be unlawful. British guidelines on how long DNA of the innocent (including those never charged, as well as those cleared) have to fall in line with this.

DNA will continue to be collected from all those arrested, and run against databases of unsolved crimes. The only difference is for how long the sample will be kept if the person is innocent.

Thanks meditrina does DNA include fingerprints?

Do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing? I would like to have an opinion on it, but whenever I try and form one, I start arguing with myself and end up smack bang in the middle. It would be interesting to hear the viewpoints of others!