Viewing Thread:
"Something else to chew on."

DNA samples.

Should it be mandatory for every living person to have a DNA sample taken for police purposes? In theory it is a good idea. Samples of every person taken so that they can be matched up when a serious crime like assault or rape occurs and DNA can be retrieved. In practice it would probably take years to get everyone's samples, until we reached the point where every new-born baby had a swab or blood sample taken and added to a national database. Then there is still the debacle around whether or not it is a breach of human rights to force someone to have a sample taken. There's always the argument "I've you've got nothing to hide...", but then there are possible religious reasons as to why you couldn't have a sample taken.

It would lead to a more crime-free society for sure, but there's currently the whole human rights issue standing in the way. Personally, I probably would give a sample. I don't ever intend to commit any serious crimes, and I'm not religious and don't have a problem with having a small blood sample or swab taken. There are others who disagree, but it's true - I haven't got anything to hide, so why not? It's not as sinister as people make out. How could storing my DNA profile on a database lead to anything more than it being checked occassionally if it's a close match? You can't be tracked by it, and it's a fool-proof method of proving my innocence if I haven't got an alibi for something. It's a tough one to judge.

I think perhaps it should be mandatory for anyone convicted of a crime, but other than that the civil liberties inplications make me uneasy about the idea.

mikelar wrote:
> Thats a good idea Lindgren.

Thank you mikelar.

Thats a good idea Lindgren. I think it should be mandatory for you to have your DNA profile recorded after committing a crime as you do with like fingerprinting.

DNA is no more abusable than say putting someone elses finger print at a crime scene...

I'm not sure if everyone with a criminal record gets their DNA profile put on record too. I know they get their fingerprints done but I don't think lesser crimes get DNA profiles done too. I think taking DNA samples after every crime big or small would help because sometimes people start out in small crimes and move onto bigger, more serious ones later on. But taking a profile of everyone from birth I would be against. I can think of plenty of other ways money could be spent than doing that.

I wouldn't like it it could be abused.

I'd be for it if the data was secure.

No because I don't trust the idea.

Hmm. I wouldn't feel happy knowing people were being convicted on the basis of it, but if police could use it to find suspects, before they later looked for 'proper' evidence, I figure that'd be a good balance.

At the moment I'm more worried about Blunkett making all over 16's have an identity card with fingerprint and iris data etc on it. And we get to pay £40 for the privilege, isn't that nice?

No, its not a good idea. I certainly dont support it.

It could be abused i guess.