Last week the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the storage of DNA and fingerprints (biodata) of innocent individuals in the UK was an infringement of human rights and “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.” Such information breached a persons right to privacy.Police have been ordered to destroy over 1.6 billion samples. The Government and police argue however that storing this information is a key weapon in fighting crime.
- Would you feel that your right to privacy had been violated if your DNA information were stored for police reference?
- Is the storage of this information reasonable if it helps the police do their job?
- Should everyone have their DNA on a database to help with police investigations? What issues might this raise?
- Is there an alternative solution?
4 comments:
Ignoring the questions set I can see a few issues in this...thoguh one might make me sound like I Want to commit crimes, I assure you I dont.
The main issue is, if everyones dna is stored, then wont most investigations become completly dna based? If your DNA is found there you would be coincided with the crime without hesitation, it would become the new way. I veiw this as what would inevitably happen, as humans are patheticly ignorant and lazy. This woul be a WRONG way to do things, and would be as blind as using the precogs in Minority Report...
Also, whats the point in storinig our DNA, it dosn't actually PROVE anything. Anything can happen within 30 seonds to place DNA in a crime scene. An accident (someone slipping, a drunk person, someone being forced into their) or purposeful event (placing DNA to cover up their own).
It's discusting to think of everyone having their DNA stored and kind of just proves that capitalism is just as bad as a dictatorship in some ways...complete control over it's people, just htey dont realise it.
Personally; I think that they should be able to store peoples DNA, mainly due to the fact it well help eliminate errors when solving crime. However, this also has to possibility to work the other way so that DNA found at the crime scene could ultimately be the only thing taken into account. Thankfully, I myself am not into crime so it shouldn't bother me too much, however, if my DNA was found at a crime scene and I was done for the crime, I wouldn't be too pleased.
DNA is annoying. At any one point someone could aquire your DNA and clone it again and again. Essentially they could create footprints of people.
At the moment DNA planting isn't much of a problem. But if the police focused on this method of criminal investigation it could lead to false convictions big time.
Of the topic, I've noticed lots of posts by 'Xander' and I've gotta say lighten up man! You seem to have this horribly negative view of the world and the human race. Were not as bad as you think we are, you've just gotta look at the good side of people.
Everyone's not against you, you just seem to make it that way!
Chillax
The main problem is that juries and sometimes the judges and lawyers involved usually don't know what the facts signify. If the DNA evidence is accurate to 1-1million, this could actually mean several things; there is a 1-1million chance of the match being wrong, that there's a 1-1mill chance of the DNA matching to someone else, or (unlikely I admit) that the DNA is only accurate 1-1mill times.
These things are easily confused by nonexpert witnesses; in the first case, the 1 in 1 mill chance of being wrong is damning evidence. The second, that there's a match in every million people, is far less damning, and is within the realm of accident, especially in large towns and cities where DNA could be spread accidentally.
Post a Comment