For or against the police keeping DNA records

[StarWorms]

Currently in England and Wales, DNA information is kept on the database no matter what the suspected crime, and even if that person is proven innocent. In Scotland it's a different matter: If the person is proven innocent, the information is removed.

Now a senior judge is suggesting a change and to make it include everyone in the UK, as well as anyone who visits the UK (tourists as well).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

It would be to much like 1984. The all knowing goverment is dangerous.

 

[Jesus Civs]

If the government is elected by the people and anyone can run for government, then I think it would have to be passed in a referendum.

If the government is a dictatorship, then the it would be up to the dictator. Personally, if I was a dictator (one of my fantasies) I would DNA record everyone!

 

[FriendlyFire]

All criminals should have there DNA recorded. But mandatory dna database is far to early for it. Probably inevitable in the future at some stage but not now

 

[rkade8583]

I think it'll help criminologists find those pesky murderers and rapists. I'm on file due to my crime and I know the fact that I'm ON file is gonna save my butt if I get wrongfully accused of something (which is why I'm afraid to leave my house... but that's another story.)

 

[Kozmos]

IMO police should take everyone's DNA from birth.

 

[Bill3000]

What's done with fingerprints in the UK? Same thing? If so, then go for it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Hell no!

My DNA is mine and if the police want it then they can get a warrant.

 

[Elrohir]

Only for convicted criminals. They shouldn't be able to keep my DNA on file if there is never any evidence that I did anything wrong - if they can do that, then they should just start gathering it at birth.

 

[IglooDame]

I think it'll help criminologists find those pesky murderers and rapists. I'm on file due to my crime and I know the fact that I'm ON file is gonna save my butt if I get wrongfully accused of something (which is why I'm afraid to leave my house... but that's another story.)

But it doesn't need to be on file - if you're accused of something, volunteer to submit for a DNA test, and you're at the same point as if it was on file in the first place.

Anyway, no surprise, I'm against innocent citizens having their DNA recorded by the government. It isn't so much because of the same sort of crimefighting as can be done with fingerprints, but because more can be done with DNA (or likely is in the immediate future), like major medical issue prediction.

 

[rkade8583]

That's a good point you bring up, igloo. I change my position to that. Only criminals and accused who volunteer to clear their name. It's essentially what I said anyway without all the innocents getting tagged.

 

[Galatian]

Well they already collect your fingerprints when you go to the US.

 

[puglover]

I would support taking mandatory DNA samples from suspects, but not from innocent citizens. There's no good need to take everyone's DNA.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I'm all for it. I mean, if you don't do anything wrong, why do you have to worry about it? It's only used to capture criminals, not for any malicious purposes.

 

[StarWorms]

I'm all for it. I mean, if you don't do anything wrong, why do you have to worry about it? It's only used to capture criminals, not for any malicious purposes.

Would you agree to having a government CCTV camera installed in your bedroom even if they promised not to watch the film? They would only ever consult it if there was a robbery in your house, or any other crime.

 

[skadistic]

Would you agree to having a government CCTV camera installed in your bedroom even if they promised not to watch the film? They would only ever consult it if there was a robbery in your house, or any other crime.

I would but I'm kinky like that......wait are the laws still on the books that sodomy is a crime?


Any criminal should have all biometrics taken and a mandatory look at legal status.

 

[bhsup]

Nope, I am against it. I'm against fingerprints being kept on file as well. Even for ex-cons. Once they have spent the time in prison that they were mandated to spend by the courts, they have officially paid their debt to society and don't deserve the stigma of it being kept on file "just in case."

Yeah, sucks for law enforcement. Tough ginger snaps, who said freedom was easy?

 

[skadistic]

Nope, I am against it. I'm against fingerprints being kept on file as well. Even for ex-cons. Once they have spent the time in prison that they were mandated to spend by the courts, they have officially paid their debt to society and don't deserve the stigma of it being kept on file "just in case."

Yeah, sucks for law enforcement. Tough ginger snaps, who said freedom was easy?

So you like making things easy fro criminals. Most of whom are repeat offenders. And instead of a quick finger print check you would rather have detectives waste time doing all the leg work to find out who goes to those prints. What about the victims and their freedom from criminals?

 

[StarWorms]

Nope, I am against it. I'm against fingerprints being kept on file as well. Even for ex-cons. Once they have spent the time in prison that they were mandated to spend by the courts, they have officially paid their debt to society and don't deserve the stigma of it being kept on file "just in case."

Yeah, sucks for law enforcement. Tough ginger snaps, who said freedom was easy?

But I could just as easily say that keeping their fingerprints is an ongoing debt to society - they knew they'd be kept if they chose to commit a crime. Secondly, there's still a high chance of them reoffending.

 

[Bugfatty300]

If there is a high chance of reoffending then why are they being released from prison?