drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Snowy - if you want to make some sort of hussy fit about it fine go ahead. I thought your comment about choking on shreddies and ethical etc deserved a yawn and frankly bored me as I felt it added nothing to a fairly good conversation. OK? It will soon be time for tea so be careful out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Should finger prints not be recorded now? Should DNA not be a permissible form of evidence?The fact that no one has suggested either of the above, and they form no logical extension to the arguments offered other than the one suggesting policemen should only be armed with a whistle, only continues to further weaken your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Eh Gringo? Now you are confusing the issue? The police have managed for this long without resorting to a national DNA database and should continue to do so imo was AWOL's comment, just answering back at that, sorry if it didn't fit in with what you want to hear. So should DNA be permissable as evidence yes or no? Should the police be able to keep it on record? Should they be able to use other evidence such as fingerprints as evidence? What civil liberty is being eroded here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 You did choose to ignore my contribution about the thought that DNA evidence was sound enough in the opinion of some people to prosecute and/or convict on its basis alone and chose to focus on a light hearted comment in order to make a point. It seems that you wish to have a debate solely on your terms and wish to belittle other people in order that they are put off from intruding in to your conversation. If it bored you why did you go to the trouble of posting a yawnnnnnn? And I am interested in the inference I am expected to draw from the 'time for tea' comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Keep trying Snowy :-) :-) As you will see my thoughts on DNA are fairly clear, my thoughts on your eating habits and silly comments about ethics are fairly clear, and my thoughts on your last comment are fairly clear and they're also off topic, and post on poster. Please return to the subject, rather than breakfast cereals folks. Ta. Blandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Some good reasons for a DNA database? http://tinyurl.com/27aumx http://tinyurl.com/ypxpqq http://tinyurl.com/2b8den etc etc - I'm just wondering about the balance between the so called infringment of civil liberties (yet to be proiven) against the civil liberties of the victims of crime (totally proven) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 What on earth do you mean about my 'eating habits'? And possibly I will keep trying if someone hiding behind their keyboard has seen fit to not comment about the content of my posts but pass judgement on my suitability to join the conversation they are having and thereafter start to mak some sort of insinuations which it seems only they understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Eh Gringo? Now you are confusing the issue? The police have managed for this long without resorting to a national DNA database and should continue to do so imo was AWOL's comment, just answering back at that, sorry if it didn't fit in with what you want to hear. So should DNA be permissable as evidence yes or no? Should the police be able to keep it on record? Should they be able to use other evidence such as fingerprints as evidence? What civil liberty is being eroded here?No one has argued that fingerprinst or DNA aren't admissable. No one says that just because you aren't allowed to drive at 145 mph, doesn't mean you go back to the days where you have a little man walking in front of the car waving a little red flag. Your points are spurious and not related to the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 'm just wondering about the balance between the so called infringment of civil liberties (yet to be proiven) against the civil liberties of the victims of crime (totally proven)There's a difference between you not understanding the concept of civil liberties and the case not being proiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Gringo - if you cant or wont see the points then fair enough. The fact that unique personal data is able to solve crime is a fair and valid one. It's noticeable that you wont, or have I missed it, say if you feel the introduction or expansion of the DNA database is good or bad. To say the points are spurious and not related shows a blinkered viewpoint IMO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 'm just wondering about the balance between the so called infringment of civil liberties (yet to be proiven) against the civil liberties of the victims of crime (totally proven)There's a difference between you not understanding the concept of civil liberties and the case not being proiven. excellent Gringo, I've obviously hit a point that you cannot or will not answer here. So a simple and straight forward question, would you be against the introduction or expansion of the DNA database? and should evidence that pertains to the person such as DNA or fingerprints be admissible in tracing the guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence.Gringo - you've got a bit of time read back through this thread and see exactly where this question came from. So are you saying it should be acceptable? Are you in favour of people's DNA and fingerprints etc being stored and then used as a method of tracing the guilty? If not why not? Maybe then we can discuss the whole thing about what data can / should be stored on people and why it can and should be used. @EDIT@ so good you typed it twice or do you have a stutter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Times article European judges could strip the profiles of more than half a million people from the national DNA database on privacy grounds — undermining its growing value to police as an investigative tool. As two sex killers caught by the database were jailed for life yesterday and a senior detective joined calls for a universal register, the European Court of Human Rights will hear a case that could mean 560,000 DNA samples being destroyed. Two people charged with offences but never convicted will ask the court next week to remove their records from the database. If they succeed, 13 per cent of the 4.3 million profiles collected since 1995 would have to be destroyed. The category of DNA profiles facing destruction has yielded vital clues in criminal cases. Official figures seen by The Times indicate that the DNA of 8,500 people never previously charged or convicted has been matched with DNA taken from crime scenes. The cases have involved about 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes. Europe will rule on the legality of the database as demands grow for the entire British population to be sampled after its crucial role in catching Steve Wright, the Suffolk Strangler, and Mark Dixie, the killer of Sally Anne Bowman. ......... Beeb article - admittedly from 2003 but the quote expresses the reservations about the total reliance upon DNA evidence that some have. ............ He said: "I think that people think that DNA evidence is so obvious and clear that if you get DNA you're bound to get the person convicted and that's all that needs to be worried about. "But I think that the use of DNA evidence on computer systems, the profiles of DNA, are problematic if they are being moved around from country to country. "People make mistakes with DNA evidence in the same way that people make mistakes with other evidence. "Therefore unless you have adequate and sensible controls what happens is you get miscarriages of justice." He added: "It's good that this person wasn't extradited and wasn't prosecuted and convicted but I'm not sure we can rely on DNA evidence always as a foolproof set of evidence." ............. Excerpt from a document on the Police DNA Database from Gene Watch UK . The expectation is that the Human Genome Project will eventually identify the genes that influence physical characteristics such as skin and eye colour, height, weight and facial features. Some scientists believe that this information could generate a description of a suspect from the SOC sample alone. Researchers are also looking at how to predict a person's health status or behavioural traits from their genetic make-up. The Custodian of the database, Dr Bob Bramley, has said that ideally the police want a description along the lines of 'a 6ft 3in man with red hair and a tendency to obesity'. Some of these applications may be unachievable and others are a long way off, but some relatively rare genetic disorders can be predicted from a person's genes. There is considerable interest in this type of research, particularly around the following areas: Þ Predicting ethnicity Research in this area falls into two categories: (1) trying to find specific DNA sequences that can predict ethnicity (2) looking at the frequency of the usual ten STRs to see whether these vary among different populations. If this proves to be the case, the FSS hopes that the DNA profiles already on the NDNAD could be used to predict where a suspect comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 If you take the time to read back through the thread you can see my point of view on what a DNA database should consist of - shouldn't be hard, you must have read the post in question as you actually replied to (omitting the relevant parts and only commenting on the security aspect). Yes I read AWOL's post and I understand where your points have arisen from, however no one apart from yourself has questioned the use of DNA or fingerprints in tracking or prosecuting offenders. You seem to want to use an acceptance of that argument, to build a case for national 60m person database of DNA (and/or fingerprints), but such a case doesn't exist. If you re-read my original post, it refers to the fact that existing legislation allows for convicted criminals to be sampled and their DNA stored. Your same links above also fall under that umbrella. Nowhere is there an argument for the whole nation to be DNA tested and and a national database created, one that the govt admit they don't want as they can't secure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 The category of DNA profiles facing destruction has yielded vital clues in criminal cases. Official figures seen by The Times indicate that the DNA of 8,500 people never previously charged or convicted has been matched with DNA taken from crime scenes. The cases have involved about 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes. Europe will rule on the legality of the database as demands grow for the entire British population to be sampled after its crucial role in catching Steve Wright, the Suffolk Strangler, and Mark Dixie, the killer of Sally Anne Bowman. Cant see where this exactly is saying that personal details should NOT be stored? No one is saying total reliance are they? That again is used as some sort of weak defence argument. The last article falls into the category of science fiction - you can always tell when a key bit starts with the phrase "Some scientists believe" - Which scientists and what do they base this thought process on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Gringo - so you accept that data such as DNA and finger prints can and should be stored? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 23, 2008 Author Share Posted February 23, 2008 If you take the time to read back through the thread you can see my point of view on what a DNA database should consist of - shouldn't be hard, you must have read the post in question as you actually replied to (omitting the relevant parts and only commenting on the security aspect). Yes I read AWOL's post and I understand where your points have arisen from, however no one apart from yourself has questioned the use of DNA or fingerprints in tracking or prosecuting offenders. You seem to want to use an acceptance of that argument, to build a case for national 60m person database of DNA (and/or fingerprints), but such a case doesn't exist. If you re-read my original post, it refers to the fact that existing legislation allows for convicted criminals to be sampled and their DNA stored. Your same links above also fall under that umbrella. Nowhere is there an argument for the whole nation to be DNA tested and and a national database created, one that the govt admit they don't want as they can't secure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Has anyone apart from yourself questioned the use of fingerprints or DNA as evidence. Erm... I know I'm not allowed to join in with drat01 in a discussion because he believes that I am unworthy of anything other than insults but I don't see you falling in to this category (I hope). So at the risk of incurring wrath, I do question HOW it is being used as evidence. There seems to be an assumption that this is so unique that it is incontrovertible evidence and that the mere appearance of somone's DNA at a crime scene makes them, without doubt, the guilty party. The appearance of someone's DNA at a crime scene only prove that their DNA is at the crime scene. It is a tool - it is being promoted as some sort of miracle cure for bad detection rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts