Last year in the House of Lords I suggested a national DNA data base. If we had one Rachel Nickel’s murderer would have been caught earlier and Colin Stagg would not have faced the possibility of life time imprisonment.
I am more then ready to sign up. Are you?
You might also want to spare a thought for what measures would be necessary to protect this information and the regulations specifying who would have access to it. Such a database would be hugely vulnerable and a violation of the privacy of individuals. DNA samples could be misused to obtain information about confidential health problems which are inherited and can be misused for racially motivated discrimination among other things.
Furthermore, the police already had a DNA sample from Rachel Nickel’s murderer, but technology at the time was not advanced enough to provide the positive id required. The Metropolitan Police have admitted to several major mistakes made at various points during the investigation that would have identified the killer earlier. The current policy of taking DNA samples from convicted criminals would have sufficed in this case.
The British Citizen is innocent until proven guilty and has the right to live their life freely without interference from the Government so long as they do not break laws and harm others. A national DNA database would be incredibly vulnerable and would violate the privacy of British Citizens. The police already have powers to investigate citizens when there is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. The only possible benefit of such a database would be if the government sold the information to organisations and private interests, but that would be totally unethical.
Dear Lord Soley,
No.
Howridiculous.
Yeah, sure, I’ll sign up because I haven’t done anything wrong.
I’m sure all the criminals will too. Good Grief, steal some more freedoms why don’t you?
Can’t say that I am. The term ‘Orwellian’ is being used so often (and so aptly) to describe what this government is doing and has done that we’re going to need a new term soon for when we _really_ become a totalitarian state.
Privacy advocates have a hard position to defend from the “if you’ve done nothing wrong” lobby but I don’t want my personal life being invasively scrutinised because some distant cousin left a fraction of our shared heredity at the scene of a crime. Moreover, I don’t want any government to have the power and the excuse to turn my life upside down on such scant circumstantial grounds.
The answer to the police overzealously pursuing the wrong man is not to ask every free and innocent citizen to surrender their biometric information.
I’d hate to live in a world where Jacqui Smith and the ACPO had unchecked power, and I was earnestly hoping that the Lords would provide checks enough to prevent might nightmares becoming reality. Please don’t let us down.
I suspect we have only just begun to realise the full ramifications of a DNA database, but that which has been anticipated is already devastating to facile arguments like this “thought”.
I’m actually embarrassed that such an authoritative figure in my country is collapsing this complex and vital argument into a deeply misguided and crushingly trite aphorism.
There I was thinking the Lords was one of the last bastions of democracy and clear thinking in the UK; somewhere to look to for the long, clear view; for perception and clarity; a place where bandwagons would be passed by with hardly a glance after a judicious and intelligent application of wisdom.
Lords of the Blog has been an oasis of hope and an inclusive window into the arcane political system in this country, but this post is horrible in all its presumptions, cheerfulness and crass popularism.
Not surprisingly it took a Labour Lord to disabuse me of any momentary hope I may have been nursing for good, honest, straight government. But a quick check with ‘They Work For You’ shows me where he’s coming from so I shouldn’t feign surprise:
* Voted a mixture of for and against introducing a smoking ban.
* Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
* Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
* Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
* Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
* Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
* Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
* Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
* Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.
* Voted very strongly against laws to stop climate change.
* Hardly ever rebels against his party in this parliament.
…Not one of the worlds great, independent thinkers then.
The madness being perpetrated by the present hateful, fear full administration against liberty, democracy and freedom is already so great that it will take 50 years to reverse if we were to start now.
The majority of people in this country are being hung out to dry by the mad haze of propaganda, fear and surveillance now being touted as government.
And it’s Christmas, not Xmas.
No, and I suggest all innocents who already have their DNA profiles on the NDNAD to consider requesting their removal. More at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/17/david_mery_reclaim_your_dna/
br -d
I am not, and never will be, ready to sign up to a national DNA database. The solution to crime is not to assume everyone in the country is a potential criminal.
DNA Evidence is not a magic bullet that will solve every crime. It doesn’t prove guilt, it can only corroborated, or otherwise, other evidence. Despite what viewers of shows such as CSI might think, DNA evidence is also not that common at the scene. A Washington Times article reports that Baltimore State Police only manage to retrieve DNA from 10% of crime scenes.
Why should we waste tax-payer’s money on a solution that removes a right of privacy from *everyone*, won’t help in the majority of cases and promotes the ridiculous idea that DNA evidence is the be-all and end-all of criminal prosecution.
The current Government seem to be obsessed in creating headline grabbing laws which they debate using the sole tool of emotion to try and convince us they’ll help, without regard to actually finding solutions to the problems. The worst of these are those claimed to be for catching The Terrorists, such as random search powers where you might as well be looking for the good old needle in a hay-stack.
Instead of wasting money on what amount to gimmicks start spending money where it can make a difference. Fix the problem at source by solving the social problems that cause most crime.
Absolutely, categorically not. As with ID cards, this is very definitely a law I would consider grounds for civil disobedience.
My objections are threefold, but any of them would do individually.
Firstly, the matter of principle. It is not simply that the role of a democratic government does not and should not encompass such broad and invasive measures into people’s private concerns. It is that the philosophy behind a database of DNA reveals a worrying lack of brakes. It is not a vice of government, despite Labour’s apparent belief otherwise, to admit that it cannot solve every crime and wipe every nose, and that incurring ever-greater costs to gain ever-reducing gains is not a road without limit. Perhaps even more insidiously, a government that gathers data on innocent people just in case they might one day commit a crime is dangerously close to the edge – if not teetering over – of violating the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Secondly, DNA is close to becoming a religion of forensics. The more we rely on it, the more we are likely to start making mistakes and miscarriages of justice from the other side. It is all well and good to say that X or Y judicial or law-enforcement mistake would have been solved, but I do not see the advantage if other mistakes are made which cancel them out.
Thirdly, the matter of simple practical trust. This government loses data regularly on USB keys and CDs. Its IT projects are fraught with cost overruns and security failures. Vast, nationwide database projects such as this greatly increase the chances of failures, and the government has simply not demonstrated that it could be trusted to implement a system that would protect a DNA database from abuse or infiltration. What happens if a USB key containing thousands of DNA fingerprints gets left in a pub bathroom?
A question: does anybody other than the upper crust of the Labour party actually feel such a measure would be a good idea?
Hieronymus:
Actually, it’s not Christmas, it’s the Solstice festival and the season of Misrule. Wouldn’t want to get the name wrong, would we, since it’s so important and all.
No, I would not, for all the thoughtful, principled and practical reasons that previous commenters have provided.
As the number of entries in the database expands, so does the possibility for False positive (innocents being accused) and False negative (criminals getting away) to occur. I urge you to educate yourself about the technology behind DNA profiling as it is not the silver bullet you seem to think.
He’s winding [DNA] you all up! He is not in favour of Eugenics?
Ref: References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Unfortunately I lack the time to write a comprehensive response, however:
1. Read Franz Kafka’s The Trial and you will discover most of the reasons why I would be against such a thing.
2. Mawkish statements, with no evidence to back them, might work for The Sun or Daily Mail, but not here.
The price of a free society is that there will always be crime, and it’s not worth trading our liberty for security. We are truly reaching the point where everyone in the country is guilty of every crime until proven innocent, a DNA database is a great step towards that.
No, on the sole basis that you included the word ‘if’.
Belated happy Christmas and 2009 – originally posted c. 1am 25 Dec, and assuming this won’t get published until you return!
No, absolutely not, for all the reasons that have been stated above.
Governments and other large organisations of all flavours and political affiliations (particularly the current administration) have demonstrated time and time again that, however innocent their motives, they simply cannot be trusted with information of this kind. Your reduction of this very complex matter to the soundbite “it’ll help solve more crimes” is regrettable. I urge you to study the various issues more thoroughly.
No and for all the reasons all ready mentioned. Indeed I would refuse
to give a DNA sample to the police unless they assured me it would be
distend after whatever investigation they where conducting. It’s not
because I have something to hide (I don’t) but because I believe
building up a massive database of the most intimate information about
it’s citizens is not very healthy for a “free” country.
The police have powers for investigation which they should exercise
when they investigate crimes. I don’t think they need greater access
to do the job. In fact if you look at the case you see the police had
access to all the evidence they needed. Their failing was to pursue a
theory and trying to make the evidence fit it rather than following
the evidence with an open mind.
No and for all the reasons all ready mentioned. Indeed I would refuse
to give a DNA sample to the police unless they assured me it would be
destroyed after whatever investigation they where conducting. It’s not
because I have something to hide (I don’t) but because I believe
building up a massive database of the most intimate information about
it’s citizens is not very healthy for a “free” country.
The police have powers for investigation which they should exercise
when they investigate crimes. I don’t think they need greater access
to do the job. In fact if you look at the case you see the police had
access to all the evidence they needed. Their failing was to pursue a
theory and trying to make the evidence fit it rather than following
the evidence with an open mind.
No, no, no.
I no longer trust this government nor its motives. I recommend, “Just Law” 2005, by Baroness Helena Kennedy, for those who have any doubts. It is an excellent read.
“This book is meant to be an alarm call about the way our liberties are being eroded. A serious abandonment of principle is in train; all of us have to say it’s time to stop.
Such a short blog posting, yet so full of inaccurate nonsense.
In the Rachel Nickell murder case, the initial forensic examination of the scene of the crime recovered no usable DNA samples from the murderer whatsoever – there was simply nothing available (at that time) to match either the murderer or an innocent suspect against.
The more detailed DNA forensics were done, with improved techniques and procedures, many years after Colin Stagg had been abused by the system.
The DNA match to the murderer was against a sample from a previous conviction.
Had it existed at the time, the national DNA database of the innocents would not have brought the murderer to justice any quicker in this case.
Therefore any national DNA database of the innocents, which is what Lord Soley appears to be advocating, would not have prevented the illegal police entrapment operation mounted against Colin Stagg.
You do not need a national DNA database of the innocent, nor, in fact, the current National DNA Database of mostly criminals, to help to eliminate innocent suspects from an investigation, you only need to match their DNA samples directly with the crime scene ones, and then immediately destroy the DNA tissue samples and processed DNA profiles of the ones that do not match.
The police investigation of the Rachell Nickell murder would not have been impeded at all, and may actually have been slightly speeded up, if the DNA tissue samples and profiles of innocent people had been removed from the National DNA Database, as must now happen as soon as possible, following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the Marper case.
Lord Soley makes no case whatsoever for the efficacy of an intrusive national DNA database of the innocent in the Rachel Nickell case.
Why exactly does Lord Soley promote such an idea ? Is it for reasons of eugenics, or control freakery, or for commercial biotechnology research ?
Beware also, other Labour politicians like Andy Burnham, who, when he was in charge of the National DNA Database when at the Home Office, claimed that the Government had no plans for a “universal” DNA database,
Burnham neglected to mention that such a universal database is not strictly necessary to identify everyone in the country, since Speculative Familial DNA searching is already an established technique i.e. only one of your close relatives, or a member of your clan, or tribe or ethnic group or race, needs to be identifiable from a DNA sample, in order to make all of your family, clan, tribe, ethnic group or race into criminal suspects, or targets of community punishments and repression.
The Xmas break gave me an opportunity to read these responses with care.
Senex – I admit it was partly a windup but only partly! I wouldn’t go for a compulsory data base but do think we need a debate about this issue and I would have no trouble putting my DNA on a data base even if the rest of you don’t want to. Let me explain why.
There are advantages to a data base. It does decrease the chances of wrongful convictions; it can increase the chances of getting a correct conviction (as Chris Nicholson says ‘it corroborates’); common sense suggests it is likely to be a significant deterrent against some cases of extreme violence – rape, murder, serious pre meditated assault.
Many of the arguments against are couched in the third person, that is, they don’t identify the writer as being the possible victim of an extreme crime. It’s always a bit remote to argue as though the victim is someone unknown to us.
The core of the argument for me however is what harm could a person or state or police officer do to me or anyone else if they had my DNA. After all it is not difficult to get it – a hair from my head would suffice. I suppose it is possible to imagine very complex plots where I could be ‘set up’ but the complexity is such that it would be easier to do it without DNA.
A state or police force that is determined to break the law by using DNA for racially motivated purposes won’t worry about such niceties as a purposefully drawn up law – ask those who experienced life in apartheid South Africa.
Metatin suggests that we don’t know the full ramifications of DNA yet. That is true but on that basis we would have difficulty legislating on many very mundane issues. In any event legislation can and does protect. It is easy to make it illegal to use DNA for specified purposes like refusing people insurance.
So as a number of you point out it is a complex argument but not as one sided as some suggest. And yes Liam, I have read The Trial and Brave New World and most other similar books and they have greatly influenced me but I have also over many years had to help the victims of extreme crimes some of whom have had to continue living near the person who perpetrated the crime. Life is not easy.