Inside England and Wales' DNA Regime 141
Sockatume writes "The UK's Human Genetics Commission has published its report on the collection of DNA by the Police forces in England and Wales. Currently, Police collect DNA from every suspect in a case which could lead to a criminal record, and retain that material, which the European Court of Human Rights has ruled illegal. The government plans to keep all DNA samples for suspects from England, Wales and Northern Ireland for up to six years, except for DNA from individuals arrested during terrorism-related investigations, which will be retained forever. The report states that the police frequently performed arrests solely to collect DNA, that certain demographics (such as young, black men) were 'very highly over-represented,' that there was 'very little concrete evidence' that the DNA database had any actual use in investigating crime, and that the database contained material from individuals arrested in Scotland and Northern Ireland, outside its remit. Of the 4.5m individuals in the database, a fifth have never received any convictions or cautions from the Police. The report recommends that an independent advisory body oversee the database, and that laws be passed to limit the uses of the database, while tracking those with access to it, and making misuse of the information a criminal offence."
Facts without analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actaully, it seems pretty accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the issue. The issue is that one in five people in that database really have no business being there.
Re:For Starters the Obvious ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cops aren't stupid(well, some definitely are; but even they possess a certain low cunning). Even if a politician, or some other Person Who Counts(tm) is enrolled in the big Orwellian database, they are going to get the kid-gloves-nice-and-polite-all-strictly-legal-and-by-the-book-certainly-you-are-entitled-to-see-your-lawyer treatment, rather than the "Yeah, and what is your overworked public defender going to do about it, shitbag?" treatment.
It is certainly better that they not be excluded entirely; but simple mandated inclusion isn't going to solve the problem that power and status counts when it comes to dealing with the cops(among numerous other entities).
Oversight isn't a fix... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actaully, it seems pretty accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Of the 4.5m individuals in the database, a fifth have never received any convictions or cautions from the Police.
Than means that for approx 80% of the people they initially suspected, they were right!
No, that means that 80% of those have had some form of criminal conviction or caution at any point in their life, which could be for a large array of fairly minor things.
Cautions can be given out for petty vandalism or fairly minor crime, lots of things that people may have done during their younger years. Not the sort of crimes that i think DNA should be kept on a database for.
Re:For Starters the Obvious ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So they started with the politicians then?
That could lead to a criminal record. If you're a politician you won't get a criminal record even if you violate human rights (case in point), torture people or commit war crimes unless you happen to be on the losing side in a war. DNA evidence would make no difference, with what passes for 'rule of law' in 'democratic countries', you could have their signature on a confession, video, multiple witnesses and live broadcasts of them torturing someone to death and a spokesperson would just go 'Mr. Politician does not condone torture' and they'd get away with it.
Re:Facts without analysis (Score:2, Insightful)
Sssshhhh... you're only allowed to make comments like that when it refers to 'middle class white guys' like the story yesterday.
I have a bad feeling about this (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't say it's surprising that there is " 'very little concrete evidence' that the DNA database had any actual use in investigating crime." If you look at the UK, the trend lines all seem very alarming - billions of pounds spent on crime fighting theater that doesn't actually fight crime, loss of basic freedoms at a rate even the Tudors or the Puritans would have found alarming, all with no apparent actual oversight of any of it. This just seems part of the same pattern.
Re:Actaully, it seems pretty accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the police use DNA for fishing expeditions instead of doing real police work. Rather than bothering to investigate and find likely suspects that they can then interview and perhaps ask for a DNA sample, they just arrest anyone who has merely been accused and take their DNA. Even if it turns out that are completely innocent that DNA is kept forever and tested against all future crimes.
Let's say you accidentally brush against someone on the street. A few days later the police arrest you because a hair with your DNA was found at the scene of a child rape and murder. You now have to explain how your hair got there (it landed on the clothes of the person you passed in the street and was transported there) and your whareabouts at the time of the crime. You will need to involve other people to confirm your alibi, which means they will find out that you are a suspect in a child rape and murder. You will not be able to go to work while in custody, and will have to explain your absence to your employer.
All because the police couldn't be bothered to try and figure out who might have done it, they just grabbed any DNA from the scene and looked in their database, then arrested everyone who matched to see who could provide an alibi.
Re:Actaully, it seems pretty accurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot Juries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The same should be done (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim [wikipedia.org], Terry, [wikipedia.org] and Ted [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you.
That word would be "kaboom".
The vast majority of "middle east" folks who are here are here because they're tired of all the shit in their home countries. The guy next to me is Iranian; he's here now with his family because he's not going to get dragged into the street by the secret police or arrested because he went to University.
Most people, no matter where they are from, don't want to blow things up or destroy buildings. (Personally, I realize that some buildings have to be blown up, but that's because of the work I do. Frankly, if you're getting shot at by the Navy, then it's probably not a big loss if we kick you off the planet.) They want to go about their lives without the fear of being blown up or shot at.
These "Muslims" (and just for the record, not everyone from the middle east is a Muslim.) emigrating to the Western world are often highly-educated (like the non-Muslim Professional Engineer next to me that I referred to earlier), young, and wanting to make a solid contribution to the countries that they are now calling home.
We were not attacked by Muslims. The attacks on the Cole, the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon were performed by brainwashed puppets controlled by a billionaire megalomanic sociopath who convinced them that they would be better off dead. They were no more Muslim than the Branch Davidians or Manson's followers were whatever religion they purported to be. The Koran is pretty clear about the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" rule, same as the Torah and the Bible. (There are parts like Leviticus in the other texts as well, so don't cut and paste something out of context from a website.) I've had Muslim co-workers, and they are as opposed to violence as anyone else. This includes hating Hamas for rocketing Israel and condemning 9/11 as a travesty.
The TSA is bullshit security theater, plain and simple.
We got into this mess from political gaming, not from "liberals". Liberals want the government out of people's lives, smaller government, and no deficit budgets.
Re:Oversight isn't a fix... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I don't think there is anything we can do to stop the collection of biometrics (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) And there really are legitimate reasons to do it. There are countless ways that the government (or anyone else) could get my fingerprints and DNA.
2. As a matter of principle, we should not pass laws that cannot be enforced.
So with those two rules in mind, instead of fighting the inevitable biometric data collection with unenforceable laws, let us make laws governing its use. If anyone uses that information, then they have to bring it in front of a court and prove their case. At that time, the judge can decide if they used the biometrics properly. If not, the evidence is thrown out. That is a pretty darned strong incentive for them to use the information properly. It is measurable and enforceable. Good laws can make it transparent.
Just brainstorming here, but what if the law required notifying someone of when and how biometric information was collected, how it is used, etc? Imagine if people suddenly got notifications about their fingerprints or DNA being stored - I think that would contribute to public awareness a heck of a lot. Awareness is good.
Criminal offense? (Score:4, Insightful)
... and making misuse of the information a criminal offense.
Wait a sec. You mean it isn't a criminal offense already???
Re:Facts without analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
As another example, the number of samples of men are also probably a lot larger than women. That isn't discrimination - it is statistics.
Re:The same should be done (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. In the U.S., fingerprints are kept indefinitely.
Not always. I was charged with a crime that I didn't commit a number of years ago. When the grand jury cleared me I received an 'order of dismissal' from the court. Among other things, this order required any and all police or governmental agencies with copies of my prints, DNA and photograph to destroy them.
Of course I later had to give up my prints to get my concealed carry license, so they've got them anyway, but not as a result of my arrest....
What would making misuse illegal accomplish? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is a police likely to file charges against another policeman?
Is a police likely to file charges against a Prosecutor?
Who exactly is going to file charges against who in order for
this illegality to have real effect? If something is illegal,
then someone is at risk of going to jail. Who exactly is at
risk when the people who have access are all law enforcers?
Re:For Starters the Obvious ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The police love to target vulnerable people that way. The Jill Dando murder is a perfect example.
The cops had no idea who did it. No witnesses, no usable DNA evidence, no CCTV, no known enemies and no-one claiming responsibility. A high profile crime, a celebrity shot on her doorstep in broad daylight and they had nothing. How embarrassing.
Desperate for a suspect they arrest Barry George, a man with serious mental health problems. He denies the murder but because he is a serial fantasist and as an interest in guns (as do many immature males) they charge him. In the end their case comes down to some rumour, character bashing and one single spec of gunpowder residue on a coat found at his residence. He was convicted and went to jail. Several years later he was released on appear after it emerged that the police had not only stored the coat in a room with other clothing that had gunpowser residue on it but that the significance of a single spec, which may not in fact be gunpowder reside anyway, was massively over-represented by police experts.
DNA and forensic evidence in general is far from 100% reliable, and is very easy to abuse. There need to be strict limits on it and independent checks in place to prevent this sort of thing happening. It would be nice if we could trust the police all the time, but in reality they are the same flawed human beings as we are and simply cannot be trusted with too much power.