UK - Outrage as DNA profile of seven month old baby

[Scarletprayers]

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, I feel just the opposite............................

[femelle]

Do you agree with known criminals having their dna sampled and held buck?

No I don't think that at all!!

Your words "known criminal" can often mean "known criminal" in the fantasy world of the police.

People just love to see someone being "done" for a rape or something that occurred (say) 27 years ago. One person even described his feeling of elation at seeing that as "I get the best thrill out of..." But we have to remember that DNA profiles are the most intimate personal information it is possible to take from someone, the police often get it wrong, and police have even been know to plant DNA "evidence".

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, that's why i asked for clarification *takes ear muffs off*

Ok, what if i change my words to "convicted several times beyond a shadow of a doubt, criminal". Would you agree then?

I understand that people love to see someone being 'done' as it were, but do we need to base our legislative system (and anything else for that matter), on the minority!?

But we have to remember that DNA profiles are the most intimate personal information it is possible to take from someone

So is a daughters innocence in the eyes her father.

The argument for not accepting the positives for such developments because police have planted evidence in some cases, is like saying that there are evil people outside (to a child) and so we must never go outside. We go outside, but we are aware and take precautions to live as safe as we can, whilst still feeling the sunshine on our skin Now granted, it doesn't always work out, but the exceptions should never dictate the rule.

I would rather see the system tightened up so that innocent people do not go to prison, rather than see 10 alleged criminals committing 27 crimes getting away with it.

Edited September 16, 2007 by femelle

[papasangel]

the only useful thing to have a childs dna on a database would be if they had a body so badly decomposed that the only way to identify it would be through dna.

But I agree Big Brother is watching. A more sinister reason for dna registry would be to keep tabs on who does not comply with the rules for what is coming up.( taking the mark etc.)

[buckthesystem]

the only useful thing to have a childs dna on a database would be if they had a body so badly decomposed that the only way to identify it would be through dna.But I agree Big Brother is watching. A more sinister reason for dna registry would be to keep tabs on who does not comply with the rules for what is coming up.( taking the mark etc.)

Even in this scenario holding the child's DNA on a database would not be necessary. What is wrong with taking a tissue sample from the corpse and comparing it to the DNA of the parents, or the DNA from the child's hairbrush or clothing, clothing from the child's house or something else that the child would have had contact with which has not been contaminated by someone else's DNA? Afterall if a crime has been committed and a suspect identified, the suspect is normally made to give another DNA sample for comparison with DNA found at the crime scene. So if the police don't even rely on the identity of DNA on their own database being 100% accurate, how is anyone else supposed to?

A DNA database is only used for criminal purposes when there is no suspect for a crime and they are trying to find one.

[buckthesystem]

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, I feel just the opposite............................

Sorry, but I don't take the same delight in seeing someone being wrongly convicted as some people here seem to.

What would you say to the one person in this scenario as he goes to jail or walks to his execution? "Sorry, but you have to be sacrificed so society can take it's revenge on the others"?

[Scarletprayers]

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, I feel just the opposite............................

Sorry, but I don't take the same delight in seeing someone being wrongly convicted as some people here seem to.

What would you say to the one person in this scenario as he goes to jail or walks to his execution? "Sorry, but you have to be sacrificed so society can take it's revenge on the others"?

No, but I don't think there should be no laws or police or prisons because someone "might" not be guilty. And I think its rather insulting to say "I am taking delight" in this. What kind of world do you want..........anarchy???

[buckthesystem]

Do you agree with known criminals having their dna sampled and held buck?

No I don't think that at all!!

Your words "known criminal" can often mean "known criminal" in the fantasy world of the police.

People just love to see someone being "done" for a rape or something that occurred (say) 27 years ago. One person even described his feeling of elation at seeing that as "I get the best thrill out of..." But we have to remember that DNA profiles are the most intimate personal information it is possible to take from someone, the police often get it wrong, and police have even been know to plant DNA "evidence".

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, that's why i asked for clarification *takes ear muffs off*

Ok, what if i change my words to "convicted several times beyond a shadow of a doubt, criminal". Would you agree then?

I understand that people love to see someone being 'done' as it were, but do we need to base our legislative system (and anything else for that matter), on the minority!?

But we have to remember that DNA profiles are the most intimate personal information it is possible to take from someone

So is a daughters innocence in the eyes her father.

The argument for not accepting the positives for such developments because police have planted evidence in some cases, is like saying that there are evil people outside (to a child) and so we must never go outside. We go outside, but we are aware and take precautions to live as safe as we can, whilst still feeling the sunshine on our skin Now granted, it doesn't always work out, but the exceptions should never dictate the rule.

I would rather see the system tightened up so that innocent people do not go to prison, rather than see 10 alleged criminals committing 27 crimes getting away with it.

"Ok, what if i change my words to "convicted several times beyond a shadow of a doubt, criminal". Would you agree then?"

Of course not! Mainly because I don't believe that taking a sample of someone's genetic makeup (giving information about their parentage, their illnesses as well as their propensity towards future diseases and also the genetic information about their entire family) would help society in anyway whatsoever.

"So is a daughters innocence in the eyes her father." Well two wrongs don't make a right. And neither will introducing an emotive statement that has no relevance at all to DNA. (please get that I am not "getting at" you personally. I just feel there is so much wishful thinking attached to DNA profiling and an incredible amount of misconceptions about it as well).

Really I believe that when the public can have 100% trust in ability, competence and honesty of the world's police, scientific staff and judicial system (as well as anyone who might be in any of these positions in the future) then I will concede that DNA profiling is a worthwhile tool. But until then ..........

[femelle]

"So is a daughters innocence in the eyes her father." Well two wrongs don't make a right. And neither will introducing an emotive statement that has no relevance at all to DNA.

Relevance explained:

You said one of the reasons you do not agree with dna being taken/stored was because "DNA profiles are the most intimate personal information". I was attempting to subtly suggest (since you brought up the emotive subject of rape), that the rape of a girl is her innocence taken, intimate and personal.

Two wrongs do not make a right, i agree totally. However, It is only in your opinion that taking dna from convicted/repeat offenders is 'wrong'.

I completely join with everyone in objecting to material being taken from children, even with their parent's consent as it criminalises people who are not criminals.

If one sample taken from a convicted, repeat offender, which solves 7 other historic crimes enables the families and victims of such crimes to gain answers and find closure, then i am all for dna used for that purpose.

Convicted criminals have to relinquish certain rights for the protection of the innocent, the moment they choose to cross the line and commit a crime against another person, which has a devastating tidal wave effect often affecting the victims family and sometimes traumatising a whole community.

[femelle]

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, I feel just the opposite............................

Sorry, but I don't take the same delight in seeing someone being wrongly convicted as some people here seem to.

What would you say to the one person in this scenario as he goes to jail or walks to his execution? "Sorry, but you have to be sacrificed so society can take it's revenge on the others"?

I have not seen anyone here 'delight in seeing someone being wrongly convicted' and would ask you not to slur people but to stick to the topic and not get personal.

I think it is dreadful when someone is wrongly convicted and have said already that the system needs to be tightened and reviewed regularly, so that this is a rarety, regardless of the dna issue.

[buckthesystem]

I would rather see 10 alleged criminals having "committed" crimes 27 years ago "get away with it" than see one innocent person being convicted!!!!

Well, I feel just the opposite............................

Sorry, but I don't take the same delight in seeing someone being wrongly convicted as some people here seem to.

What would you say to the one person in this scenario as he goes to jail or walks to his execution? "Sorry, but you have to be sacrificed so society can take it's revenge on the others"?

No, but I don't think there should be no laws or police or prisons because someone "might" not be guilty. And I think its rather insulting to say "I am taking delight" in this. What kind of world do you want..........anarchy???

Scarlet, seriously I wasn't talking about you. Of course I don't think you would "take delight...." I was speaking very generally - when ever this sort of thing is discussed - on talkback radio or what ever - it's amazing how many people are just "itching" to take away others' rights and/or imprison them, with or without a "reason". These people never put themselves in that category, or even consider that they ever could be. It is almost sickening to read or listen to people talking like that. I can see how there would never be any shortage of people to do horrible things to others at the behest of any dictator. I think that is a basic flaw in humans, a lot of people can be so sadistic.

And to your other point, I've really got to say that I did not advocate for a moment a system of "no law etc." I just believe that the laws that do exist are very badly handled and are mostly administered by either total incompetents who shouldn't be anywhere near a criminal justice system, or power-freak people who seem to think it is their mission in life to "get" others.

However, seeing as you mentioned anarchy, I came across a definition of the word, and you will probably be very surprised:

"

Anarchy means "absence of a ruler". The prefix "an-" from greek means a negation or opposite, and the suffix "-archy" means "rule", hence "anarchy" means rule by no persons. It thus means a fully peaceful and loving society and not the redefinition of the word cult supporters use to scare people. It does not mean "chaos" or "violence" and it is actually government that causes chaos and violence"