The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
Any such DNA based system has an inherent flaw - those who control it. If such a system did exist then the temptation would be to ensure that certain people did not exist within it, allowing the free reign. Then of course you have the problem of illegal immigrants, DNA planting, foreign workers, tourists, diplomats etc.
Best way to beat crime is to put money into getting more officers out there and cutting down the paperwork, and reforming the courts, not another expensive system of computers.
Best way to beat crime is to put money into getting more officers out there and cutting down the paperwork, and reforming the courts, not another expensive system of computers.
There is no way I would ever have a DNA sample put on a police database if I could possibly avoid it. DNA evidence is touted as being infallable, but it isn't. So if they match you by mistake your a gonna, even with no other evidence to back it up. Its unlikely, but it isn't worth the risk.
Two words:
Clone. Army
Clone. Army
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.
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.
Page: