Are you in favour of a compulsory national DNA database?

[Touring Mars]

Are you in favour of allowing your government to hold your DNA sequence on permanent record, strictly for use in a criminal database?

Do you think that it's a potent weapon in bringing criminals to justice that otherwise very well may not be identifiable, or is it a major breach of your human rights? Are the benefits in crime-solving outweighed by the risks of miscarriages (either accidental or deliberate) of justice? Could a voluntary database scheme ever work (given that those likely to commit serious crime would never volunteer their DNA), and if a compulsory scheme was allowed, what do you think about taking the DNA of people without their consent and storing it forever (i.e. from birth)...?

 

[Mark T]

I wouldn't mind my DNA being held on record. Recording DNA from birth would also be a good idea in theory.

 

[Philly]

It isn't something I would mind, as long as they use it only for criminal investigations. And I would go crazy if they did a DNA test every time you passed a cop on the street.

 

[Danoff]

Are you in favour of allowing your government to hold your DNA sequence on permanent record, strictly for use in a criminal database?

Yes, provided I have broken some law.

Do you think that it's a potent weapon in bringing criminals to justice that otherwise very well may not be identifiable, or is it a major breach of your human rights?

I think it is a potent weapon in law enforcement, and should be used as often as possible.

Are the benefits in crime-solving outweighed by the risks of miscarriages (either accidental or deliberate) of justice?

Greatly. The risk of mistake is very low with DNA matching.

Could a voluntary database scheme ever work (given that those likely to commit serious crime would never volunteer their DNA)

Doesn't sound like a viable option to me.

and if a compulsory scheme was allowed, what do you think about taking the DNA of people without their consent and storing it forever (i.e. from birth)...?

A compulsory scheme is almost certainly required, but people should only have their DNA taken when they break a law (I'd say, probably more than a misdemeanor). The general public should not have their DNA record taken. Most criminals offend multiple times, so the records would still be quite useful. And a database is not necessary to use DNA. If they can match DNA from the scene to DNA from the suspect, they've got a winner.

I'd say anything greater than a misdemeanor (or something to that effect) should get your fingerprints, DNA, and whatever else they want to identify you with in permanent record.

 

[Duke]

I find it a serious breach of privacy. There is a ton of medical information available via DNA that I might not choose to have shared (or might not even choose to know myself). Once information is in government hands, the citizen then has ZERO guarantee that it will be used "appropriately". It has ceased to be his or her private possession and has become public.

I'm also bothered by that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing. First off, it's implied that all citizens are criminals, and it's only a matter of when they will commit a crime so that the government can catch them more quickly when they do. Second off, although DNA identification matching is highly accurate, how the DNA evidence itself is gathered is open to both accident and abuse. I can think of about a thousand ways my DNA could show up in a crime scene investigation without me actually being involved in the crime in any way.

[edit] OK, the above presumes some kind of "from birth" DNA registry where all citizens are required to submit a DNA sample for record. I support mandatory DNA filing for convicted felons, such as Dan describes above. A felon is a person who has chosen to throw away their own rights to privacy by committing a serious crime.

 

[Mark T]

I can think of about a thousand ways my DNA could show up in a crime scene investigation without me actually being involved in the crime in any way.

This is the only factor that worries me. How often do you come home from being out to find somebody elses hair on your coat. When I travel on the tube I seem to come home with a long blonde hair on me (my girlfriend is normally the first to find it aswell).

There are so many instances where DNA can be transferred onto a crime scene and the wrong person could be convicted. I know there will be other forms of verification (CCTV, fingerprinting etc) but it still worries me.

 

[Omnis]

No. Way.

My privacy is mine to keep secret, not the government's. A national database will be the undoing of the people.

A criminal database is different, and matters regarding that should be left to the courts to decide (for example, a sentence of 1 year in prison and permanent database-storage, or 2 years and a decade of database-storage, or whatever).

DNA is fine where it is in the hands of the forensic scientists. When the bureaucrats get a hold of it: game over.

 

[Kent]

I find it a serious breach of privacy. There is a ton of medical information available via DNA that I might not choose to have shared (or might not even choose to know myself). Once information is in government hands, the citizen then has ZERO guarantee that it will be used "appropriately". It has ceased to be his or her private possession and has become public.

I'm also bothered by that whole "presumed innocent until proven guilty" thing. First off, it's implied that all citizens are criminals, and it's only a matter of when they will commit a crime so that the government can catch them more quickly when they do. Second off, although DNA identification matching is highly accurate, how the DNA evidence itself is gathered is open to both accident and abuse. I can think of about a thousand ways my DNA could show up in a crime scene investigation without me actually being involved in the crime in any way.

[edit] OK, the above presumes some kind of "from birth" DNA registry where all citizens are required to submit a DNA sample for record. I support mandatory DNA filing for convicted felons, such as Dan describes above. A felon is a person who has chosen to throw away their own rights to privacy by committing a serious crime.

Right On!
Good job. 👍
(+rep)

To add... Let's not forget that humans have a tendancy to become reliant on technology. A DNA database could lead to sloppy work in the justice system, I'd hate to see what could go wrong.

 

[BobK]

I'd +rep Duke, but I must spread some around. He summed it up perfectly, I'm in complete agreement.

As for taking DNA samples of convicted felons, I could almost be okay with that but only if it's expunged if the conviction is overturned. Given that expungement sometimes doesn't happen now when a conviction is overturned, I'm not sure that even that is a good idea.

Still another concern is the possibility of misuse.

Parenthetically, how muchy good did the DNA evidence do in the OJ Simpson trial?

 

[3-Wheel Drive]

Absolutely not. It seems sometimes that our genetic code is the only thing truly private these days. While DNA comparisons are theoretically foolproof, the methods of taking them are still prone to mistakes. The Houston Police Department is a good example of this. And such power in collection is just asking for abuse.

 

[Omnis]

I'd +rep Duke, but I must spread some around. He summed it up perfectly, I'm in complete agreement.

As for taking DNA samples of convicted felons, I could almost be okay with that but only if it's expunged if the conviction is overturned. Given that expungement sometimes doesn't happen now when a conviction is overturned, I'm not sure that even that is a good idea.

Still another concern is the possibility of misuse.

word.

Parenthetically, how muchy good did the DNA evidence do in the OJ Simpson trial?

About as good as a leather glove.

 

[Pupik]

I find it a serious breach of privacy. There is a ton of medical information available via DNA that I might not choose to have shared (or might not even choose to know myself). Once information is in government hands, the citizen then has ZERO guarantee that it will be used "appropriately". It has ceased to be his or her private possession and has become public.

Exactly my thoughts. I read this a few weeks ago, and even though it's opinions of one judge, it's a dangerous road to start following. Who knows how this information will be used? If I'm truly not guilty of a crime, and I personally wish to offer my DNA, then I'll do so upon my own free will.

It won't work in America anyhow, since people here don't even like census workers.

 

[Loon]

I agree with having a database of criminal DNA, like when you first commit a crime and get finger printed, they should get a DNA sample then too so they can use it as another way to identify people at crime scenes.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't really find anything wrong with that. As long as the DNA is strictly used for the appropriate reasons and as long as it doesn't involve giving me a needle.

 

[Duke]

As long as the DNA is strictly used for the appropriate reasons...

And there's the problem.

 

[TheCracker]

Yes, just wait until the medical insurance companies get hold of the DNA database and start charging you premiums based on hereditary diseases that some distant relative of yours has died at a young age from.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, exactly.