Home & Garden0 min ago
Mugger Beat Ex-Soldier, 79.
68 Answers
http://
Obviously this cretin must have had a police record for them to have his DNA on file, it is through this that the police were able to trace him and bring this piece of pond life to justice.
With this in mind the question that must be asked is "should everyone's DNA be on file"?
Obviously this cretin must have had a police record for them to have his DNA on file, it is through this that the police were able to trace him and bring this piece of pond life to justice.
With this in mind the question that must be asked is "should everyone's DNA be on file"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Your naivety is sweet, Chilli
// The police had accused Mr Butler of murdering a woman, Anne Marie Foy, in 2005 - his DNA sample was on record after he had willingly given it to them as part of an investigation into a burglary at his mother's home some years earlier.
The DNA sample was only a partial match, of poor quality, and experts at the time said they could neither say that he was guilty nor rule him out.
Nevertheless he remained in prison - despite other CCTV evidence allegedly placing Mr Butler in the area where the murder took place being disproved.
Merseyside Police told the BBC that all the evidence gathered satisfied the Crown Prosecution Service that there was a sufficient case to be presented to a jury, but Mr Butler's solicitor Paolo Martini remains critical.
"I think in the current climate [DNA] has made police lazy," he said.
"It doesn't matter how many times someone like me writes to them, imploring they look at the evidence... they put every hope they had in the DNA result." //
http://
// The police had accused Mr Butler of murdering a woman, Anne Marie Foy, in 2005 - his DNA sample was on record after he had willingly given it to them as part of an investigation into a burglary at his mother's home some years earlier.
The DNA sample was only a partial match, of poor quality, and experts at the time said they could neither say that he was guilty nor rule him out.
Nevertheless he remained in prison - despite other CCTV evidence allegedly placing Mr Butler in the area where the murder took place being disproved.
Merseyside Police told the BBC that all the evidence gathered satisfied the Crown Prosecution Service that there was a sufficient case to be presented to a jury, but Mr Butler's solicitor Paolo Martini remains critical.
"I think in the current climate [DNA] has made police lazy," he said.
"It doesn't matter how many times someone like me writes to them, imploring they look at the evidence... they put every hope they had in the DNA result." //
http://
// So you agree that it would have prevented the miscarriages you mentioned Gromit? //
No I don't. The Police had Colin Staggs DNA sample.
The Birminghan Six's fingerprints (it could have been DNA) were on playing cards which were said to bear traces of explosives (but didn't). If DNA test had been available then, it would not have helped them, it would haved helped to wrongly convict them, like their fingerprints did.
No I don't. The Police had Colin Staggs DNA sample.
The Birminghan Six's fingerprints (it could have been DNA) were on playing cards which were said to bear traces of explosives (but didn't). If DNA test had been available then, it would not have helped them, it would haved helped to wrongly convict them, like their fingerprints did.
In principle I don't see anything wrong with DNA samples being kept for use as evidence in future. In practice I think it would be a bad idea, for the reasons given above -- if weight is given to DNA evidence then the risk of false convictions if your DNA is found at a crime scene is too great for me. It could be found there by the Police by accident, or a faulty test, or perhaps even planted.
The latter is particularly worrying as we've seen in recent years that the Government hasn't got the hang yet of keep large databases of sensitive information 100% secure. As long as these dangers exist, I think we should be wary of a DNA database -- but as and when they are overcome I'd not mind the idea. New techniques in use of DNA evidence have led to people being convicted of crimes they previously might have "got away with", which is a good thing -- and DNA databases could improve this conviction rate. But the danger to be avoided is the risk of innocent people being sent to jail on a false conviction.
The latter is particularly worrying as we've seen in recent years that the Government hasn't got the hang yet of keep large databases of sensitive information 100% secure. As long as these dangers exist, I think we should be wary of a DNA database -- but as and when they are overcome I'd not mind the idea. New techniques in use of DNA evidence have led to people being convicted of crimes they previously might have "got away with", which is a good thing -- and DNA databases could improve this conviction rate. But the danger to be avoided is the risk of innocent people being sent to jail on a false conviction.
If the State has our DNA profiles, why stop with just 'solving' crimes?
Wouldn't it be fair to allow insurance companies to make more informed decisions on who they should refuse cover to based on genetic code?
Wouldn't it be cost efficient to focus education funding on children with propensity for learning the skills we need?
And withhold it from those more likely to die young and therefore not repay the investment?
Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to outlaw sexual relations between people with conflicting genetic markers with forced sterilisation as a penalty?
Yes - jolly good idea
Especially as we can be so sure that all future governments will do the right thing with all that personal information
Wouldn't it be fair to allow insurance companies to make more informed decisions on who they should refuse cover to based on genetic code?
Wouldn't it be cost efficient to focus education funding on children with propensity for learning the skills we need?
And withhold it from those more likely to die young and therefore not repay the investment?
Wouldn't it be a moral obligation to outlaw sexual relations between people with conflicting genetic markers with forced sterilisation as a penalty?
Yes - jolly good idea
Especially as we can be so sure that all future governments will do the right thing with all that personal information
No to mass DNA collection for the following reasons...(Apologies for being long winded, but databases is what I 'do' for a living)
1. We would have to be absolutely sure that not only were the IT systems in place that recorded this information was secure, and hack-proof. Not only that, but protocols would have to be put in place to ensure that the data was 100% correct and could not be accessed by Ny unauthorised sources.
2. More importantly, once the information is stored, we would have to be sure that it could not be used against us by any future government or government agency...for the rest of our live. How do we know how that information could be used in the future? How do we know that some 'progressive' government would not licence the information to a third party for a fee - such as health providers, or the insurance industry?
3. Administrative costs. Data would have to be collected, verified (how?), backed up, replicated for redundancy, and on a regular basis 'fire tests' would have to be carried out to ensure recovery processes were in place.
4. Data collection at birth introduces a new consideration - would we all have to resubmit to giving DNA samples when we move? The sample taken at the hospital would be pretty useless unless you had the person's current address!
Which brings me to the final, and biggest problem...
5. Not only would the DNA profile register have to cover the whole country, it would also have to cross-reference the PNC. I don't know how that platform could be maintained. It would literally be going out of date every few minutes.
1. We would have to be absolutely sure that not only were the IT systems in place that recorded this information was secure, and hack-proof. Not only that, but protocols would have to be put in place to ensure that the data was 100% correct and could not be accessed by Ny unauthorised sources.
2. More importantly, once the information is stored, we would have to be sure that it could not be used against us by any future government or government agency...for the rest of our live. How do we know how that information could be used in the future? How do we know that some 'progressive' government would not licence the information to a third party for a fee - such as health providers, or the insurance industry?
3. Administrative costs. Data would have to be collected, verified (how?), backed up, replicated for redundancy, and on a regular basis 'fire tests' would have to be carried out to ensure recovery processes were in place.
4. Data collection at birth introduces a new consideration - would we all have to resubmit to giving DNA samples when we move? The sample taken at the hospital would be pretty useless unless you had the person's current address!
Which brings me to the final, and biggest problem...
5. Not only would the DNA profile register have to cover the whole country, it would also have to cross-reference the PNC. I don't know how that platform could be maintained. It would literally be going out of date every few minutes.
-- answer removed --
"Mass collection of DNA, fingerprints and photographs of the whole population is never going to happen. It would be hugely expensive, and hugely mostly useless"
dream on...if we stay in the eussr, you can bet your last euro they will introduce it at some point, that and ID cards...its the hallmark of all the best dictatorships
dream on...if we stay in the eussr, you can bet your last euro they will introduce it at some point, that and ID cards...its the hallmark of all the best dictatorships
Sharingan, that is exactly what im saying!! And we seem to be importing more and more....... The Kenyan living here who admits killing up to 400 people but he's allowed to stay here because he might get killed himself if he gets set back... Tough!!!!
I totally pissed off with hearing about these people. We are the worlds dustbin!! Everybody and anybody is welcome here no matter what they've done. And they seem to be able to carry on doing it here!
I totally pissed off with hearing about these people. We are the worlds dustbin!! Everybody and anybody is welcome here no matter what they've done. And they seem to be able to carry on doing it here!
Latest Posts
Rwanda Threat Not Working? Right Oh!
News1 min ago
News11 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.