was reading the paper today and there was a debate on whether to have us all put on the NAtional DNA Database (NDNAD), personally i dont mind if we do lots of criminals are caught in this way from past crime, this only can be a good thing. although i can see Liberty point of view that it would infringe on our human rights. but what is more important catching criminals or offending a few people. i work in abingdon at orchid cellmark a private DNA company we do samples from Kent, Sussex etc police force for record on the NDNAD also paternity testing, i have to be on the database for work but to be honest it doesnt bother me.

as long as the buggers dont try to make us pay for it otherwise it will turn into the fiasco the identity cards have become.
by all means bring the id card in but make us pay a nominal fee like £10
lets face it with all the technology about it should be fairly straight forward

yeah i agree and to be honest it doesnt cost that much for the police to put your sample on the NDNAD, paternity test etc are expensive at our place £500 a pop, but all you need for the database is a mouth swap thats it, as people who have been locked up will know as its now compulisary to have done, and now even if you are innocent of your crimes it still stays on the system. we are the only country in the world to do this hence why our data base has more hits (catching criminals) and percentage individuals per population then any other country, no matter what CSI tells you

a mouth swap? I'll swap mine for a one which doesn't eat as much food, and doesn't shout and swear so much

no cos then you would have to change your name to

saladpooly

Don't be daft. The main purpose of living is not to catch criminals and terrorists so we shouldn't organise our lives around it.
I know a much surer way of preventing crime. Just chop everyone's hands off, and their heads too while you're at it.

Anyway, I have nothing further to add to these 390 comments: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/05/1238211

I don't quite understand the argument of those people who say it infringes ones human rights. Anything that takes the crims off the street, who are a far greater risk to my human rights than a mouth swab taken at birth when one has'nt a clue whats happening anyway.
The nuclear bomb was and is a massive potential infringment of my human rights, but whether the do-gooders or ban the bombers like it or not it was the bombs existance and the reality that if you used it you were "nicked" that has actually kept me safe.
DNA is a bit like that. It
Besides unlike fingerprints you can not cover them up.
Forgive me please but I can't help thinking that there are probably a lot of folks out there who don't want to find out that their siblings are actually their uncles and aunties and their grannies are nowt to do with them.

You are all idiots to believe that the technology will perform perfectly and that the system will be applied fairly. The application of science involves human judgment - ie it is fallible. The money would be far better spent on youth work if you really want to reduce crime.

You answered your own question.

no sorry dont agree about youth work
the youth clubs always attracted the people who wished to join in but always had the outsiders who hung around outside not wanting to abide by the house rules who picked on the kids as they come out

Pay attention no.6, I said youth work not youth clubs.

It might also help if some of the youths actually went out to work.

90% of the crime is caused by 1% of the population. Most criminals are known to either their victims or the police. Recording the details of the entire population of the UK smacks of oppression if you consider the above and could only serve to solve a few old crimes which hardly justifies the cost.

And crucially as has already been said, mistakes CAN be made. It's not infallible.

Nothing is infallable, and mistakes can be made but you just have to do the best you can with what you have.
If it smacks of oppression then fine, I want the crims to feel very oppressed indeed.
I personally will not feel oppressed by it in the least.

You are right about most criminals being known to the police BUT without evidence they are walking about commiting more crimes and taking the Pi55 out of the decent majority.

If 90% of crime is indeed being commited by 1% of the population, Who is doing the other 10%? Are we swiping off and maiming and killing ourselves?

No of course we aren't. I'm talking about occasional criminals, white collar fraudsters and the like. The crime that gets on the public tits is the crimes against the person and their property. Do you really give a monkeys if some bank clerk swipes a few thousand off his employers disgusting profits?? But you do give a monkeys if some lairy local hero decides to put your car windows in.

In Worksop we had two families who everyone knew. The Richardsons and the Marvells. Finally they were lifted and caged and burglary and car crime dropped 75%. This was SIX people. I was burgled once and my car was broken into six times and stolen once. In two weeks I and seven of my neighbours were burgled.

I don't see how DNA-ing the entire populace keeps shit like that off the street.

sorry i dont agree with DNA data base the technology is sound id cards maybe you have a point but a DNA profile is unique and the profile is checked by at least 20 poeple before going on there all experts.

thats utter rubbish, firstly the police dont carry out the testing its all done by privatly impartial companies, and secondally DNA is a crutital part of not convicting people but seeing who was at the scene of the crime, DNA isnt conclusive evidence but is combined with other areas of the case to bring about the conviction.

No it isn't. If you are taken into custody, you will give a DNA sample IN the Police Station, along with your fingerprints and a photograph. This is EVERY time that you are taken into custody. If a mistake is made at that stage, the mistake will go all along the line.

i do know that as its my job being a DNA analyst. the reason i said it was rubbish was his point about being an easy cop out for lazy police work, forensics is the new police work and assists in convicting may people in this way. take a look at sarah payne her killer was found via a single strand of fibre that matched her dress in the suspects car is that lazy police work? also criminals who commit rape are caught by mostly only DNA samples.

i guess the old style of life of mars cops beating confessions and going round accusing anyone is the way you would rather have it rather than proof

how can anyone convict you for doing 30.3 in a 30mph zone using DNA, i take your point about that via ID card, which by the way i think is a waste of money due to the point made of most of the criminal population being known to the system, the only reason there are bringing this in is to our details ie insurance etc all linked onto a file not what they say about immigration, but DNA data base is far removed from that and only used in criminal cases ie burglary were criminals leave cig butts at scene or blood, and in matters of assualt, murder and rape. surely the police cannot abuse this as i said before it only proves in burglary cases (not rape or assulat) that you were at the scene if you had a real reason for being there it goes no further.

i do have a vested interest in this hopefully going into research about it next year just doing experience at the lab at the moment, extraction the police swaps from people locked up or referene samples of a range of suspects to determine who is involved in the crime

But matching fibres from a dress has nowt to do with DNA, rapists are usually caught by positive identification, occasionally yes, by DNA but there was technologies available for forensic ID long before DNA. Rapists have a nasty way of leaving a signature behind. Policemen have a nasty way of planting evidence sometimes too.

The issue we're discussing is whether the entire populace should be on a DNA database. NO!!! Because it's fallible. And it's fallible because the Police are involved and they're risibly inefficient at times and downright incompetent at others.

AH the Police. That body of people where you don't actually have to be competent at what you're supposed to be doing - or even do what is right and just if you or your mates don't want to, 'cos you can. That body of people which will accept an employee merely on the basis of wanting to be in above all else, regardless of ability or the fact that the applicant might just be a twat who will relish the opportunity of making everyday folks' lives hell.

For fook's sake I don't believe this. What the hell is wrong with everyone that they actually WANT to be in a database?
I don't! Just fooking leave me alone to pay my taxes and get on with my life. A tiny reduction in crime rates is too big a price to pay.

So then Mr Abingdon, explain the miscarriages of justice that are down to faulty scientific evidence?

give me an example the only ones that spring to mind are the cot death cases, when it was an opinion of one expert and thats it an opinion not scientific fact like DNA, fingerprints that cannot be changed from the individual. Also would you like to mention all the correct prosecutions brought by sound scientific evidence because i think its a lot more.

i fully agree but there was planes before the invention of the jet engine, it just adds to the case in question bringing about a conviction by increasing the amount of evidence aginst a person.

quote="Pinhead"]

But if scientific evidence gets it wrong once then the whole system is in disripute. Unless you believe the odd unfortunate individual is expendable.[/quote]


But hasn't it always been like that? Nothing new there, democracy is run along those lines.

I cannot understand your attitude in not trusting the police. What NEVER!

So what do you propose then, disbanding them and resorting to anarchy? Aye! that would be good.

What the hell is wrong with technology in the fight for our streets.

Pooliekev - If the police had had DNA evidence available the first time your car was broken into then it may have prevented it being done over the next five times, as you seem to imply that it was the same tw@ts each time.

If the luddites had triumphed all those years ago we would not be having this discussion because there more than likely would be no computers or even electricity.

DNA - bring it on, lets make it almost impossible for burglers, muggers, rapists, absent fathers and any other type of villian.

absent fathers? wtf
please explain

Whoa whoa whoa I for one am not saying we shouldn't use technology to fight crime.
What I'm saying is keep me out of your fookin databases. I don't want to be in there. End of. I don't need to give a reason.

Blokes who go around getting as many women as possible pregnant, then contribute sod all to the upkeep of the resulting sport.

Have I hit a raw nerve with you there?

It has everything to do with women, they do commit crimes as well you know.
They get to serve their time bringing up the fruits of the mans labours. the man gets to go off and do it again. She also has that option and frequently does. Dragging her previous trophies along behind her.

If you want to get personal and blame me for your dislike of the database then all I can say is I can see why you call yourself pinhead.

Me touchy? - Hell its not me who is afraid to give a sample of DNA.
I'm not touchy about it because I have nothing to hide in my deep dark past that may come out and bite my bum.

If I may raise the subject of another thread which you have contributed to - that of the unfortunate guy who is disgracefully being done for supposedly discarding a cigarette butt
out of his car window.
If the @rse who reported him had picked up the said cigarette butt, there would be enough DNA evidence to establish who in the car(if indeed it came from that car) tossed it out.

A clear case for a DNA database. Although I would have a hard time trying to justify the expense on such a petty case.

Oh no not the old "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument.

Here's the correct version: "if I've done nothing wrong you have no reason to keep tabs on me."

What part of I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A DATABASE don't you understand?

The majority of prisoners are marginal people often with mental health problems. Absolutely nothing has ever been done by any government to address this problem other than to bang criminals up for a few months or years and then let them out to be marginal and mentally ill all over again. If a data base works as the govt seems to think it will, then we'll simply be banging up more people that ever with still no attempt to integrate ex cons. Where will the overall benefit be? The silent majority (us) will still be at risk from miscreants getting out into the community and being a threat of one kind or another, and nothing will have been done to help people integrate

As usual the govt is focussing on an issue which makes it look as tho they're doing something when in fact they're doing nothing meaningful at all.
On the other hand there'll be a whole new problem : a data base where we'll all have personal details logged including details that can be easily looked up by any govt or official who wants to identify ideological, ethnic or religioius dissenters.
It doesn't need pointing out where that could lead, in view of very recent history

Can't you stop talking sense for once in your life?

are'nt we all bordering on the insane mark on here

I'm not sure what you're bordering on, Timmy, since I've raised points you've not bothered to discuss

DNA yes....

i cant comment on prisoners mental health issues as it is something i know nothing about, thank you.

Still not clear why you think I'm bordering on the insane. Perhaps you just felt like being offensive?

FFS it was a tongue in cheek remark, not meant to offend anyone

Oh, really??

oh dear its hard work round here

the most intellectual people are allegedly bordering on the line of sane and insane, apparently its a fact well this is what a pyschology teacher told me.

so Mr Marx if you flip and end up Sectioned i will visit you mate

Abingdon, you are wrong in your assumptions that the application of DNA is the same as the technology of DNA. And you are wrong in your assertion that the only cases of forensic error are in cot death cases. There have been problems with DNA and fingerprinting too.

I suggest you read a recent study, Carole McCartney, Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice (Willan, 2007).

As I read through this thread, all I can picture in my mind is Winston Smith in 1984. Complete lack of freedom for the individual. You may solve all crime this way, but what sort of life will we live. I'm in agreement with both Mr Heads, the government don't need to have this information about me, and I won't be giving up anything that I don't need to, and I certainly do not have anything to hide.

If the Police gave a flying fart they'd have pulled them in first off without DNA evidence. They didn't need it and EVERYONE INCLUDING the Police knew who it was.

No-ones saying disband the Police, I'm saying that they aren't effective is all and we should be aware of that.

Any national database is potentially sinister in what the powers that be may eventually use it for. It is symptomatic of a left wing government that has been in power too long. I don't want an ID card, I don't want to be on a national database , I reserve the right to shut my door and have my privacy.

What has made it more difficult for the burglars is that fences now refuse anything other than brand new gear. So they've stopped breaking into houses and go shoplifting instead.