General Chat

If DNA taken at birth, would be quite horrendous trying to keep track of changes of name and addresses to go with it.

They won't just sell it off on the quiet, they are COMPILING it on the quiet. Before 2001 DNA samples taken from those voluntarily, or who were not subsequently convicted, should have been destroyed, but lots were not. There are now over 3 million samples on the database, many of these come from people who gave samples voluntarily for elimination purposes. Supposedly there are also thousands of samples from children (I can only guess from paternity suits). Are they made aware that their samples are kept? If the goverment wants this database, why can't they be more open about it? As David says, 'they' already have enough information about me, and DNA profiles will be just another batch of data for insurance companies and the like to get their teeth into.

Only a couple of weeks ago, on my local news, a newborn baby was found dead, with her head bashed in, at a local beauty spot. I would very much like to know who her parents are...would be a start to finding out who killed her. OC

I would say it abused my human rights Maureen. The government has already sold off my electoral roll details - who can guarantee that my DNA data won't be sold off on the quiet too?

I'm really against it and I have nothing to hide.

I agree if I would think only people with some thing to hide would be worried. Or would someone say it abused ther human rights. Maureen

I agree with Harry, but with a word of caution. When relying on scientific, forensic or other expert evidence, this must always be corrorated by something else which is completely independent. e.g wife is murdered and husband is convicted on the evidence of DNA. Of cousre it was found on her, he slept with her the night before, but it doesn't prove he killed her

I watched that Sensing Murder last night ... sickening it was. Little 6 yr old girl Murdered and Raped. DNA testing would have caught him 25 yrs ago .... but now, there is no evidence left to convict him with. Elaine ;-)

Maggie, Not an expert on DNA, but I think your argument holds little water. Would suggest that 70% of crime is not premeditated, assaults , thefts and the like. Was always taught that every contact leaves a trace, whether that would be the case via gloves - may be. Say for rape cases, there would be 100% cases of DNA leaving. Think I am right but you are obviously not alone in your view.. Happy days

DNA testing is already used for detecting genetic anomolies - but it's voluntary. Banks have certain details - and no, you don't know whether they will misuse your details. DNA and fingerprinting won't stop identity theft unless it is checked every time the card is used - and the machine (when they've invented it) checking it is working properly. I have noticed there are a lot of 'What ifs' FOR the argument. What if they found DNA at the scene of the crime? Many old crimes had not been solved because the perpetrators had the sense not to leave fingerprints. These crimes are being solved because DNA testing wasn't around at the time. Do you really think clever criminals are leaving DNA everywhere now, so they can be traced? Of course they're not, Hence taking everyone's DNA and fingerprints at birth will have little effect on the crime rate - as usual the not so clever criminals will be caught, and the clever ones will get away with it - but a big effect on the privacy of the innocent - you never know who could hack into the computer!!!! maggie

I'd be OK with speed camera's on every corner. If it would save one more life ... then fine.... and yes, I do occasionally speed, but if speed camera's were there I wouldn't. I can't see why any one would want or need to tap everyone's phone line ... although maybe they already do ... but I feel sorry for anyone who has to listen to most of the conversations :-) Lets be realistic .... no one wants to restrict society or takes people's privacy away from them, but IF DNA and/or Finger printing prevents crimes or helps solve crimes, helps with medical issues etc, then surely it can only be a good thing ? Would it also prevent Identity theft .... which seems to be a growing problem ? Elaine ;-)

yes,I think it should:-))

I fullly agree with OC. What if what if what if. If you always lived by that philosophy then would you ever do anything. When you open a bank account, do you think, What if the bank manager decides to steal my details - no. It would be so much easier. If there was a crime and some DNA, and you were able to just run it through the system, you would get a match straight away, and not spend time and money trying to work out who did it. (as in the case of rape or murder)

its about time

I fully agree with both Jellyhead and David. Aside from governments misusing the information for their own ends, how would it prevent people from committing crimes? Surely criminals would find a way around the situation - masks and gloves are a simple 'off the cuff'' solution. The death penalty doesn't seem to be much f a deterrent in USA. It is treating everyone as a potential criminal - lumping the whole of society into the lowest common denominaton. If no-one objects because they don't have criminal tendencies, then why don't we have speed cameras on every corner, as I'm sure no-one speeds, and telephones should be automaically tapped - no-one is going to object to that are they? It would lead to a total control of society. They may as well put 'tracker chips' into everyone. maggie

While JH asnd David make valid points, I am in complete disagreement with them. Good luck to both. The money mentioned by Old Crone is perhaps a small point in a bigger argument. Very valid though. Whenever a criminals fingerprints were identified, you could be almost certain of a guilty plea. I am told DNA works the same way. No point in nearly every case of pleading not guilty - no expensive trials. Another small advantage of course is in identifying loss of memory cases and bodies, where we now have to resort to dental records if there are any. Happy days

Jelly Just to tackle one of your points - If serious crimes could be quickly resolved by pinpointing DNA then that saves money. The Yorkshire Ripper case could have been resolved years earlier than it actually was, if DNA had been used, and incidentally, saved the lives of several women. Several recent high-profile murder cases have cost millions of pounds - as a Tax Payer, I do not grudge this money being spent, but how much more sensible if these could quickly have been resolved, leaving the money saved for tackling less serious crime. If the BNP were in a political position to get hold of my DNA and use it against me, then I sincerely hope I would already be dead - I would not wish to live in any Country which had elected such people as these to power. We have to trust 'them' every day with our most personal information. It doesnt always work, that trust, but I still think it would be for the greater good of the majority of the population. OC

this is my dream.. for what it's worth! we should all be 'bar coded' at birth.. with dna i.d we can then check our 'serial numbers'... and hey presto.. WE FIND ALL OUR LOST RELLIES IN ONE AFTERNOON !!!!... work's o.k for our pet's.. :-) xk x

What if .....? Whether or not your DNA/Fingerprints are taken at birth, won't stop your 'what if ' arguements surely ? It's happened in the past without DNA/Fingerprinting ... so if it's going to happen, then it would do anyway ? or am I reading this wrong ? Elaine ;-) ps. Our medical files already have details as to family history etc, so they wouldn't need DNA to confirm what information is already available ? We already trust our details with many different organisations ... doctors, banks, etc etc.... so one more won't make an awful lot of difference surely ?

Yes - I'm all for it. Might stop a lot of crimes from ever being commited. Pen x