DNA law change

[imdying]

In reference to this (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4842662a11.html) article, and specifically this comment:

Giving the Police more power to screw even more innocent people over!! Like, the Police can be blardy TRUSTED - not to plant evidence etc. as they have been doing to secure a conviction?Really? How many people here honestly believe that the NZ Police would do that? I have no doubt that they're often under pressure for convictions on high profile cases, and sometimes there's that scum bag that's gotten away more times that they can count that they really want to nail hard... but surely the sport in it for the police would be lost pretty quickly? I mean, wouldn't the buzz be 'getting your man', rather than just locking up randoms? I accept that there are going to be crooked cops, but surely they already have plenty of ways of 'stitching someone up'.

Having said that, I still don't believe they should be able to take your DNA in the new manner. Either take everyones DNA, and start taking it from birth, or use it when it's required to tip the balance. If it's good enough to start matching up previous crimes, then why not sample everyone and use it to rip the heart out of the criminal element in this country? Probably because it's not a magic tool like CSI makes out...

[Swoop]

Arthur


Allan


Thomas.




Definately NO gathering of DNA if someone is arrested. That is a complete joke.
After being convicted by a court of law is different, but definately not on an arrest.

[Ixion]

Two words. David Docherty

[Colapop]

If you have nothing to hide then what is the big deal? How many rapes or sexual assaults could be preveted by having a larger DNA data base? Murders, assualts... ?

[Mully]

Definately NO gathering of DNA if someone is arrested. That is a complete joke.
After being convicted by a court of law is different, but definately not on an arrest.

Agreed. Anyone convicted of a jail-able (or Home detention-able) offence should be forced to contribute a sample for the database.

It's a slippery slope when they start taking samples of everyone arrested

[Skyryder]

Arthur


Allan


Thomas.






Add Scot Watson to this list.

On the Thomas thing this only happened due to public pressure as a result of Pat Booths articles. There are still some of the old time cops who still think he is guilty.

Watsons day will come...............just don't know when. Problay when all those that fucked him are either dead or retired.

I personaly don't have a problem with DNA data bases but having said that I'm just not too sure how this can be abused. I'm more concerned about digital finger print profiling. There has been talk that you may be required to give your fingerprints at the side of the road. The technology is developed for this and I'm picking the boy racer problem will be the catalyst that the police will use to promote this. It will be an ID thing which is what was used for the licence photo ID.

Skyryder

[Swoop]

It's a slippery slope when they start taking samples of everyone arrested
Welcome to the land of Big Brother...:oi-grr:

[idb]

Is it really any different to submitting a fingerprint impression?

Do they actually do that as a matter of course or is that just an American tv thing?

[Trudes]

If you have nothing to hide then what is the big deal? How many rapes or sexual assaults could be preveted by having a larger DNA data base? Murders, assualts... ?

Agree!
I heard somewhere or read somewhere that every baby born in NZ since ages ago have a blood sample taken to test for some kind of disease (someone who wants to look this up can do a search of some sort) it's for genetic testing of some sort, these blood samples are then sent somewhere to be tested for this disorder and are then kept and stored.
Apparantly they can't be used for any type of DNA proof or anything and you can request to have yours returned to you, but that would depend upon you knowing about a bit of your baby blood being stored away somewhere in the country and caring to have it back,.... anyway, my point is.... I've forgotten, but I guess if someone really wanted to stuff about with your DNA and you were born in NZ, they could somehow get access to your blood swab/smear thing and do something with it, but why bother.:whistle:

[Mully]

Add Scot Watson to this list.

Actually, that's a point. Didn't they convict Watson on DNA evidence that was shown to be compromised?

And wasn't David Blain convicted on dodgy DNA evidence too?

[Skyryder]

Is it really any different to submitting a fingerprint impression?

Do they actually do that as a matter of course or is that just an American tv thing?

If you get arrested it's mug shots and the finger print pad. I'm not sure if that goes as far as having a drink blood test. Sounds a bit ghoulish but you get the picture.

Skyryder

[MsKABC]

Agree!
I heard somewhere or read somewhere that every baby born in NZ since ages ago have a blood sample taken to test for some kind of disease (someone who wants to look this up can do a search of some sort) it's for genetic testing of some sort, these blood samples are then sent somewhere to be tested for this disorder and are then kept and stored.
Apparantly they can't be used for any type of DNA proof or anything and you can request to have yours returned to you, but that would depend upon you knowing about a bit of your baby blood being stored away somewhere in the country and caring to have it back,.... anyway, my point is.... I've forgotten, but I guess if someone really wanted to stuff about with your DNA and you were born in NZ, they could somehow get access to your blood swab/smear thing and do something with it, but why bother.:whistle:

Yes, the heel prick test blood is stored away. They test for several serious diseases. It's relatively easy to get the sample back, but not many people know this. The midwife (or other person taking the test) should inform you of this....mine didn't.

If you are convicted of any crime involving harm to another person, your DNA should be kept on record, IMHO.

[Ixion]

If you have nothing to hide then what is the big deal? How many rapes or sexual assaults could be preveted by having a larger DNA data base? Murders, assualts... ?

I have a good deal to hide. My private life for one thing. And I have a great deal to fear. Police corruption and ESR incompetence for a start. David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence (I'm personally sure Scott Watson was, too, but that's not proven). DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

[MSTRS]

What people don't know is that if you have a bone marrow transfusion, you will then produce the donor's dna. AFAIK.

[MsKABC]

David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence ...DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

My understanding is that DD was convicted on the basis of (deliberately?) mis-interpreting DNA evidence. Any type of science is only as reliable and honest as those technicians, officials etc who are using the results. You could make similar statements about any type of evidence e.g. planting physical evidence at the scene of a crime, making evidence "disappear". Anything is possible where corruption is present.

Personally, if I were falsely accused of a crime, I'd rather they had the means to prove me innocent using DNA evidence than not :)

[Finn]

What people don't know is that if you have a bone marrow transfusion, you will then produce the donor's dna. AFAIK.

That's a rather risky procedure to get off a speeding ticket.

What the police don't know is my girlfriend is 5% Finn DNA. Took a lot of work.

[MSTRS]

That's a rather risky procedure to get off a speeding ticket.

What the police don't know is my girlfriend is 5% Finn DNA. Took a lot of work.

Did you miss the lack of an 'r' in 'bone'?:killingme

[Ixion]

My understanding is that DD was convicted on the basis of (deliberately?) mis-interpreting DNA evidence. Any type of science is only as reliable and honest as those technicians, officials etc who are using the results. You could make similar statements about any type of evidence e.g. planting physical evidence at the scene of a crime, making evidence "disappear". Anything is possible where corruption is present.

Personally, if I were falsely accused of a crime, I'd rather they had the means to prove me innocent using DNA evidence than not :)

Perhaps so. But there is much more likelihood of data being 'massaged' when it's all in a nice database. "OK we got some DNA from the crime scene. Let's see what the database shows. Hm, that guy looks close. Closeish anyway. And I know that cunt I've been waiting to get him for ages. Yeah, that DNA match is pretty close. In a bad light. Jury won't argue anyway" .

At present they have to have some reason to connect a person with the crime. Or they're looking at someone with a criminal record, which is at least some grounds for suspicion.

And people get arrested for all sorts of non-criminal reasons. You certainly can't say that anyone arrested is a criminal. Protesters and demonstrators for a start. Think of all the (very respectable) people arrested during the Springbok demonstrations.

[MsKABC]

And people get arrested for all sorts of non-criminal reasons. You certainly can't say that anyone arrested is a criminal. Protesters and demonstrators for a start. Think of all the (very respectable) people arrested during the Springbok demonstrations.

Absolutely, which is why I wouldn't be in favour of wholesale dna sample collection from every individual who was arrested for something. Convictions, on the other hand....

The ability to give a voluntary dna sample to prove you were innocent of a crime in the event that the police had samples to compare it to would be a good thing. Although, in some cases science cannot disprove something, but only prove IYGWIM?

[Ixion]

A DNA sample from those CONVICTED is the current situation . The PROPOSAL is that DNA should be taken from every person ARRESTED.

In the case of DNA testing science can only DISprove, not prove. A scientist may be able to say "This DNA did not come from that person". But cannot (usually) say "This DNA definitely did come from that person". At best "There is a good probability that the DNA came form that person. But it *could* have come from someone else". Of course this will always be presented to the jury as "Scientific evidence proves that the DNA came from the accused".

[Colapop]

There's a point - it's all a conspiracy to undermine the very fabric of the society that we live in so as to control all that we do.

I would rather have people like Malcolm Rewa, Joseph Thompson or Jules Mikus behind bars. Ask the families or their victims how they feel about DNA samples being taken. All these men and other rapists, murderers and scum have been rightfully convicted using DNA tests.

We as a society are right to question the integrity of the justice system but not to the point where there is no justice for the victims. It's bad enough that rightfully convicted criminals have only to serve a third of their sentence. I would far rather convict 1 innocent man (even it was me - and yes I would fight to clear my name) than let 10 (more) scumbags walk the streets preying on my family or friends.

[spudchucka]

Arthur


Allan


Thomas.




Definately NO gathering of DNA if someone is arrested. That is a complete joke.
After being convicted by a court of law is different, but definately not on an arrest.

Really what is the difference between taking fingerprints upon arrest, (which currently happens) and taking a saliva swab for the DNA databank? If the person is acquitted the prints get shredded and likewise their DNA profile would be removed.

[spudchucka]

Two words. David Docherty

Yep, DNA profiling saved his arse nicely. From a contemporary point of view if someone was to go through the same process now they would be exonerated immediately rather than being imprisoned for years.

[spudchucka]

Watsons day will come...............

Preferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.

[spudchucka]

I have a good deal to hide. My private life for one thing. And I have a great deal to fear. Police corruption and ESR incompetence for a start. David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence (I'm personally sure Scott Watson was, too, but that's not proven). DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

Doherty was pardoned based on the DNA evidence that wasn't able to be analysed at the time he was convicted.

[mowgli]

Really what is the difference between taking fingerprints upon arrest, (which currently happens) and taking a saliva swab for the DNA databank? If the person is acquitted the prints get shredded and likewise their DNA profile would be removed.

The new law invites fishing expeditions without just cause.

Cop 1: I'm sure this guy has done some shit. We just can't connect him to anything. Slippery bugger.
Cop 2: Hey, I know. Lets push his buttons. When he bites we'll arrest him for disorderly whatever. When the DNA results come back we'll have him for sure.

At the moment the Police have to prove to a judge that taking a DNA sample is justified before the fishing can commence.

IDKWTFITA

[mowgli]

Watsons day will come...............
Preferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.
+1 we can live in hope

[stify]

Preferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.

oh that comment so provides me confidence with the 5/0.......unless you've retired of course...

[SARGE]

meh .. the FBI, DoD and the CIA have had access to my DNA for decades ..


not stressed over the NZPD having it if they want it ..its like giving it to the Sea Scouts

[Skyryder]

Preferably in the same manner that Mr Dixon's did.

Well the police got Doherty wrong and no doubt you were as cock sure of his guilt then as you are of Watson's now.


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Well the police got Doherty wrong and no doubt you were as cock sure of his guilt then as you are of Watson's now.


Skyryder

When Watson gets pardoned I'll take it all back.

[Patrick]

... David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence (I'm personally sure Scott Watson was, too, but that's not proven). DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

I might be wrong here, but I thought he was convicted because the victim got a look at her attacker and she said it was him. He was her neighbour?

It was later DNA testing (not available at the time of the case) that proved his innocence.

Oh... WATSON is guilty....

[Skyryder]

When Watson gets pardoned I'll take it all back.

Why not use your own intelligence to figure out for yourself instead of others to do it for you.

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this. Most of it raises doubt and puts a convincing case that Watson 'did not commit' the double murders.


Who knows we may get to agree on something.


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this.

The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

[Patrick]

Why not use your own intelligence to figure out for yourself instead of others to do it for you.

There's heaps of stuff on the net on this. Most of it raises doubt and puts a convincing case that Watson 'did not commit' the double murders.


Who knows we may get to agree on something.


Skyryder

I'm not convinced he is innocent... I may have mentioned this once or twice...? There is all sorts of crap on the net, so who knows what to believe?


The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

Or did they....??????:bleh:

[Skyryder]

Actually, that's a point. Didn't they convict Watson on DNA evidence that was shown to be compromised?

I think you may be referring to the hairs on the tiger blanket.


From http://trudyandtom.tripod.com/defence.htm

The two hairs:

There was a strong possibility of inadvertent transfer of the hairs in the ESR laboratory in Auckland on 7th March 1998 when both ST05 (reference hairs from Olivia Hope's bedroom) and YA69 hairs (tiger blanket hairs from the accused's boat) were examined by the same scientist, on the same day, at the same examining laboratory table. There was an unexplained cut in bag ST05 and hairs from Olivia Hope could have inadvertently escaped from that bag. By 7 March 1998 the YA69 hairs had already been screened on two previous occasions without any examiner noticing the two crucial blond hairs. One being 250mm long and the other 150mm long;

The DNA evidence to show that these two hairs were Olivia Hope's was far from conclusive and was inconclusive and unconvincing. Hair 69/13 had shown one positive test in New Zealand which could not be replicated, the confirming test in Australia was said to be unreliable as there had been no contemporaneous test of a control sample which should have been undertaken, testing in the UK showed that the hair had a mixed DNA profile (i.e. from two or more sources). Hair 69/12 had produces no nuclear DNA results in New Zealand and the United Kingdom results only matched 12 out of the 13 positions. If unmatched on the 13th position the hair would be excluded and there was evidence of contamination in the UK testing;

There was a strong possibility, which could not be excluded by the crown hair expert of secondary hair transfer given that both Olivia Hope and the accused had been present at the same function on New Years Eve at Furneaux Lodge; Note: On the subject of secondary transfer, it should be noted that there were 16 animal hairs found on the tiger blanket and yet there has never been an animal onboard Blade since it's launch


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The internet said that man never landed on the moon too but the Mythbusters screwed that conspiracy theory over good and proper.

Yes it did and I for none never believed it. We could all argue that on the basis we should not form any opionions on subjects or ideas that we can not confirm by our own presence or have not witnessed with our own eyes. So since neither of us were on the moon how do you know that a man 'did' land on the moon? In reality we do not.


We deduce truth by way of our reasoning. We look at the 'probable.' That which is most likely, given our narrow terms of reference on any particular subject due to our inexperiance or lack being present on any said event.

It's not where you get the information but its relevance to a particular point or question.

Skyryder

[Winston001]

It's all about balance. The rights of the individual to privacy and protection from the powers of the State, measured against the community interest in reducing crime and apprehending offenders.

I can't see any real objection to having a national database of every persons DNA. It will help when bodies are found - the Australians cannot identify some of the people in the bush fires - and gives us another way of identifying criminals.

New York explains the crime drop there in because of the DNA database they have. Plus no-excuse law enforcement. In Invercargill we recently had a murderer convicted - guilty plea, on DNA after an unsolved murder in 1988. Technology moves forward.

If you are worried your sample will be mismatched or mislabelled, you have plenty of spare DNA on your body for comparison tests. So you won't face being charged with Scott Watsons offences.

[dipshit]

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

[MSTRS]

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

Mostly right, but...
http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/twinfingerprint.htm

[dipshit]

Mostly right, but...
http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/twinfingerprint.htm


... your point..???

[MSTRS]

... your point..???

My point is that fingerprints are unique. But DNA is the same for identical twins. So it is not necessarily a 'better' form of identifying people.

[Ixion]

Rather more so, in fact. Fingerprints are unique (or at any rate no one's found a duplicate in over 100 years).

But DNA ID , as used for law enforcement purposes, is far from unique. The degree of exactitude does not extend down to a specific unique person. The results will only show a probability of match " The DNA from this person is a million times more likely to be from the same person who left the crime artefact as a random person" . In other words, there are , statistically, four other people in the country who it could equally likely be from. And the odds go way up if there are related people.

But it is never put that way tot the jury . it is always "Scientific DNA evidence proves that the DNA came form the defendant". It "proves" no such thing (proves nothing in fact) but that's how it's always presented. And juries, being largely composed of stupid people swallow it. "It's scientific, izzn it? Must be true".

[spudchucka]

So? Doesn't everybody who gets arrested get their fingerprints taken?

DNA is the new and better fingerprint.

You will probably be happy for the technology next time your house is burgled and they find a drop of blood or something from the burglar when he was trying to break in.

These days it doesn't even have to be a drop of blood, potentially anything that the offender has been in contact with could provide a DNA sample.

[spudchucka]

My point is that fingerprints are unique. But DNA is the same for identical twins. So it is not necessarily a 'better' form of identifying people.

Jeepers so you only get to narrow it down to two people then, better to just flag the whole idea then I guess.

[spudchucka]

Rather more so, in fact. Fingerprints are unique (or at any rate no one's found a duplicate in over 100 years).

But DNA ID , as used for law enforcement purposes, is far from unique. The degree of exactitude does not extend down to a specific unique person. The results will only show a probability of match " The DNA from this person is a million times more likely to be from the same person who left the crime artefact as a random person" . In other words, there are , statistically, four other people in the country who it could equally likely be from. And the odds go way up if there are related people.

But it is never put that way tot the jury . it is always "Scientific DNA evidence proves that the DNA came form the defendant". It "proves" no such thing (proves nothing in fact) but that's how it's always presented. And juries, being largely composed of stupid people swallow it. "It's scientific, izzn it? Must be true".

No it isn't put that way at all. The ESR scientist explains the entire process to the jury and gives evidence that the crime scene sample is x-million times more likely to be from the defendant than from any other person.

[MSTRS]

DNA records are fine as far as they go. But they are not the be all and end all when it comes to identifying a particular person. One assumes that in conjunction with 'other' evidence, it can be useful. That is not in question.
But reliance on DNA in the absence of 'other' evidence may be on shaky ground.
David Dougherty excepted:sweatdrop

[Big Dave]

Two words. David Docherty

That's four words.

[Grahameeboy]

If you have nothing to hide then what is the big deal? How many rapes or sexual assaults could be preveted by having a larger DNA data base? Murders, assualts... ?

Exactly.......move on moaners:oi-grr:

[Grahameeboy]

I have a good deal to hide. My private life for one thing. And I have a great deal to fear. Police corruption and ESR incompetence for a start. David Docherty was falsely accused, convicted and jailed on the basis of DNA evidence (I'm personally sure Scott Watson was, too, but that's not proven). DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake. Show me why such a database won't make more David Dochertys more likely?

Hey Ixion if you look outside your window you may see some men in white coats walking up the driveway.....

[Grahameeboy]

No it isn't put that way at all. The ESR scientist explains the entire process to the jury and gives evidence that the crime scene sample is x-million times more likely to be from the defendant than from any other person.

Yep ESR are a private organisation (worldwide) and they receive the DNA from Police so this drastically reduces the chances of falsifying evidence....

[Winston001]

Yep ESR are a private organisation (worldwide) and they receive the DNA from Police so this drastically reduces the chances of falsifying evidence....

Err...not really.
ESR is a government owned crown research institute.

[spudchucka]

DNA records are fine as far as they go. But they are not the be all and end all when it comes to identifying a particular person. One assumes that in conjunction with 'other' evidence, it can be useful. That is not in question.
But reliance on DNA in the absence of 'other' evidence may be on shaky ground.
David Dougherty excepted:sweatdrop

Where has anyone said that police are reliant on DNA evidence? It forms a large part of modern day policing but it does not replace other traditional forms of crime fighting. It is just another very useful tool to use in the fight against crime.

[Big Dave]

not replace other traditional forms of crime fighting.

Dunkin' Donuts shares just rebounded. :-)

[spudchucka]

Err...not really.
ESR is a government owned crown research institute.

They are independent of the police and manage the DNA data bank. The police do not have any direct access to the data bank, all crime scene samples are sent to ESR for analysis. They need to maintain their integrity otherwise the evidence would be meaningless.

[Grahameeboy]

Err...not really.
ESR is a government owned crown research institute.

I thought they were private because I had an interview there once...anyway, it is still independant from the Police...I can hear the response...

[Max Preload]

DNA evidence is the easiest evidence of all to fake.

Fucken' spot on, Bevan. This law proposed law is bullshit.


meh .. the FBI, DoD and the CIA have had access to my DNA for decades ..
not stressed over the NZPD having it if they want it ..its like giving it to the Sea Scouts

Give a lot of your DNA to Sea Scouts, do you? The mind boggles!

[MaxB]

ESR is a Crown Research Institute. It is funded via contestable Govt. research funds which are scrapped for by the other CRIs, a few direct contracts, NZ commercial and overseas commercial income and a few other bits and pieces.

Wayne Mapp is the minister (MoRST) and there is no direct link between the cops and ESR.

Most of ESR is ISO 17025 compliant which means that nearly everything they do labwise is traceable to the nth degree.

I wish the other NZ Institutions could have the same degree of acountability as ESR.

[SPman]

So, after Labour treading roughshod and with contempt over Human Rights, National look set to follow in their footsteps

The act, as proposed is a breach of the NZ Bill of Rights act, and is a violation of the right of unreasonable search and seizure.
They say it will only be used for "a relevant offence" - currently rape, murder, child abuse, serious assaults and burglary, but they are already seeking extensions to include firearms offences, ordinary assault, "threatening acts", receiving stolen property, killing someone with a car, peeping or peering, cruelty to a child (so smackers are in) and cruelty to animals. Eventually expanding it to "any imprisonable offence", opens the door to carte blanche testing of anyone who takes their fancy.....ie, if the police want to go fishing for evidence, they will have the rod, hook and line at their disposal. Disorderly behaviour, the standard charge for protesters - open wide mate.....cut down a tree in your section - in breach of the RMA....your DNA is all theirs.....

It is telling, that the only state which allows this sort of uncontrolled dragnet for DNA is the UK - and they've just been severely admonished by the European Court of Human Rights
Every other country requires strong judicial safeguards, which is as it should be!

So...little by little, do the liberties and rights which we have enjoyed in the past, become ever smaller and proscribed, all under the mantra of "safety".
-for the State, not the individual!

[Patrick]

" The DNA from this person is a million times more likely to be from the same person who left the crime artefact as a random person" . In other words, there are , statistically, four other people in the country who it could equally likely be from. And the odds go way up if there are related people.

But it is never put that way tot the jury . it is always "Scientific DNA evidence proves that the DNA came form the defendant". It "proves" no such thing (proves nothing in fact) but that's how it's always presented. And juries, being largely composed of stupid people swallow it. "It's scientific, izzn it? Must be true".

It is usually put in this form...

"The DNA found at the scene is a hundred (or sixty even...) million more times likely to have come from this defendant..."

Kinda points one in the right direction - since there is only 4 mill in the country.

I haven't heard of a figure as low as 1 mill.... ever... but what do I know......

[Patrick]

I wish the scrotes and arsewipes in NZ could have the same degree of acountability as ESR.

There ya go... fixed it for ya....

[Ixion]

It is usually put in this form...

"The DNA found at the scene is a hundred (or sixty even...) million more times likely to have come from this defendant..."

Kinda points one in the right direction - since there is only 4 mill in the country.

I haven't heard of a figure as low as 1 mill.... ever... but what do I know......

the number is usually hyperinflated to make the jury go "jeez, dat's a big number. Must be guilty"

The crooked part (or, one of the crooked parts) is, the 'big number' is 'in comparison with a random person'. That is, the defendant is x million times more likely to be the perpetrator than an Eskimo. The random person isn't even limited to the population of the world. It is just "out of all the possible DNA combinations' which is a huge number. And of course, the population of NZ is NOT random. Most NZers are related distantly to one another. It's a small country. And once you introduce any degree of relationship at all, the odds plummet.

But with the proposed database, even that will be irrelevant, because what will happen is it will become an elimination game. "We have three possible suspects. So look up the DNA database and see which is the best match . OK, C is the closest fit, must be him, the scientific DNA evidence proves it".

I wouldn't convict a dog of barking on the basis of DNA evidence .

[Patrick]

Kinda follow what you're saying, but it is usually presented as "x million more times to be the defendant than any other male in NZ" for example... dunno about the eskimo, unless he was the one kicking the polar bear in the ice hole.

But if the DNA is for a dog, then why not convict it of barking?

[98tls]

Difficult choice really,lets oppose the rule change and give the ever growing number of fuckheads in this country more opportunity to get away with there shit so as to appease a few hippies that still believe that New Zealand's "the way we were".:2thumbsup:beer:

[spudchucka]

I wouldn't convict a dog of barking on the basis of DNA evidence .

Are you Ned Ludd reincarnated?

[Ixion]

In some circles i am known as Enoch Ludd. Neds BLOODY BIG HAMMER. Try enochludd@gmail.com

[wbks]

Most NZers are related distantly to one another. It's a small country.:gob:Anyone for opening up the immigration laws? Unless of course you fancy pumping your distant cousin:sick:

[Ixion]

Marriage between cousins is legal and not uncommon'. Almost all maoris are related. If not by blood then by digestion. Remember that six generations thing.

[dipshit]

Almost all maoris are related.

Bingo! So long as DNA can prove that the black guy did it - it would have done its job nicely. :2thumbsup

[Max Preload]

Bingo! So long as DNA can prove that the black guy did it - it would have done its job nicely. :2thumbsup

And predictably... :innocent:

[davereid]

The principles that allowed us to consider ourselves democratic, free and justice loving appear to be getting lost.

Police can be judge-jury and executioner on the side of the road.

The idea of innocent until proven guilty has long since gone, and we have lost the right to appeal to higher courts.

Being judged by a jury of your peers is no longer of much value as jury nullification has been made illegal. Jury nullification was of course the very reason we had juries in the first place !

Various government agencies can force their way into your home without warrant or cause.

Applying for a firearms licence gets your picture in the digital criminal database.

This is yet another example of governments lurch towards tyranny. "We'll take your DNA, because we can"

Police are implicated in this, claiming its OK because its legal. The guards of Auschwitz, made quite the same claim.

We are of course many miles from Auschwitz.. but we give our Government the power to take us there at our peril.

[MSTRS]

Marriage between cousins is legal and not uncommon'. Almost all maoris are related.

Are you trying to say that incest tends to run in families?

[Max Preload]

Blah blah etc, etc.

Sounds like you don't trust the government. What do you have to hide? :msn-wink:

[Winston001]

The principles that allowed us to consider ourselves democratic, free and justice loving appear to be getting lost.........


It's true that the price of freedom is to be ever vigilant. So if a national database of all NZers DNA was established, then there would need to be an independant controlling body.

The problem for us as a society is that our individual freedoms are always limited by the requirements of the community we live in. We may only drive on one side of the road. We must pay taxes to support each other - schools, roads etc.

People often shout long and loud about freedoms and rights without recognising there are obligations too. If we want peace and prosperity, a safe society, then we have to accept some rules. If a DNA database helps find offenders then that surely is a good thing.

So far most of this discussion has focused on paranoia about police stopping you on the side of the road and fitting you up for some burglary/rape/murder. As others have said, DNA is only one evidential element - there still needs to be other corroborating evidence. Look at the OJ Simpson case - they had Simpson's DNA - and he was acquitted!

And don't forget the victims of crime whom most of you ignore. Don't they have the right, the legitimate expectation that the offender will be identified?

[spudchucka]

The principles that allowed us to consider ourselves democratic, free and justice loving appear to be getting lost.

Police can be judge-jury and executioner on the side of the road.

The idea of innocent until proven guilty has long since gone, and we have lost the right to appeal to higher courts.

Being judged by a jury of your peers is no longer of much value as jury nullification has been made illegal. Jury nullification was of course the very reason we had juries in the first place !

Various government agencies can force their way into your home without warrant or cause.

Applying for a firearms licence gets your picture in the digital criminal database.

This is yet another example of governments lurch towards tyranny. "We'll take your DNA, because we can"

Police are implicated in this, claiming its OK because its legal. The guards of Auschwitz, made quite the same claim.

We are of course many miles from Auschwitz.. but we give our Government the power to take us there at our peril.

And in the next breath you'll probably moan that the police do nothing when your house gets burgled.

Crime control and civil liberties will always be in conflict to some degree and its up to modern civilisations to find a happy balance.

Taking a saliva swab from an arrested person is no great infringement on their rights especially when you take into consideration that in all likelihood the arrested person has been arrested because they infringed upon the rights of some other innocent party.

[davereid]

And in the next breath you'll probably moan that the police do nothing when your house gets burgled.

Crime control and civil liberties will always be in conflict to some degree and its up to modern civilisations to find a happy balance.

Taking a saliva swab from an arrested person is no great infringement on their rights especially when you take into consideration that in all likelihood the arrested person has been arrested because they infringed upon the rights of some other innocent party.

I guess that after my privately installed, privately monitored alarm went off, I would expect a private security guard to attend.

Police in this district have a policy of not attending burgs unless they are either advised the burglar is still there, or the house belongs to a pliceman.

If there had been a burg, I assume the police would eventually show up, and possibly make a half-hearted attempt to collect evidence, although all I really require would be the file number for my insurance claim.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The issue is that these powers do not make NZ a police state on their own. But they ARE the powers that the state requires if it wishes to be tyranical.

Government has managed without all these tools for years, without allowing crime the upper hand. Thats because most crime, is done by a very small percentage of the community. Dealing with criminals firmly, right from the start is actually the answer.

These powers are not about crime. They can't be, as they are about giving the state power against citizens who in all likelyhood have not committed a crime.

ID cards, powers of search and seizure, limiting the courts, these are the powers of state control. Not crime control.

[scumdog]

I guess that after my privately installed, privately monitored alarm went off, I would expect a private security guard to attend.

Police in this district have a policy of not attending burgs unless they are either advised the burglar is still there, or the house belongs to a pliceman.

If there had been a burg, I assume the police would eventually show up, and possibly make a half-hearted attempt to collect evidence, although all I really require would be the file number for my insurance claim.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

That sounds just like parts of NZ where I DON'T LIVE..

[Winston001]

Government has managed without all these tools for years, without allowing crime the upper hand.......

Mmmm.....but if you consider that we've lived in communities for the past 11,000 years, the idea of recording fingerprints is a very new and radical idea.

Technology provides us with answers which didn't exist even 20 years ago. We'd be foolish to ignore such tools. Indeed, DNA has been used in the USA to exonerate many wrongfully convicted prisoners. Without it, some of them on death row would be dead right now.

If DNA information can disprove connection with a crime - David Doherty - then we have to accept its value to show a connection where one exists.

[peasea]

That sounds just like parts of NZ where I DON'T LIVE..

What are the co-ordinates of that Utopia of which you speak?

[scumdog]

What are the co-ordinates of that Utopia of which you speak?


I guess one of the 'perks' of living in a vibrant, warm, populated area (read: north of here) is the NON-Utopian factors of life as mentioned by davereid and others....

[spudchucka]

Blah blah post 76 etc.

You are just too paranoid to qualify for any further discussion.

[davereid]

You are just too paranoid to qualify for any further discussion.

Hmm.. paranoia ?

You name 5 countries that have these powers and have NOT degenerated into police states. I bet I can match you and raise you.

[Genestho]

It's true that the price of freedom is to be ever vigilant. So if a national database of all NZers DNA was established, then there would need to be an independant controlling body.

The problem for us as a society is that our individual freedoms are always limited by the requirements of the community we live in. We may only drive on one side of the road. We must pay taxes to support each other - schools, roads etc.

People often shout long and loud about freedoms and rights without recognising there are obligations too. If we want peace and prosperity, a safe society, then we have to accept some rules. If a DNA database helps find offenders then that surely is a good thing.

So far most of this discussion has focused on paranoia about police stopping you on the side of the road and fitting you up for some burglary/rape/murder. As others have said, DNA is only one evidential element - there still needs to be other corroborating evidence. Look at the OJ Simpson case - they had Simpson's DNA - and he was acquitted!

And don't forget the victims of crime whom most of you ignore. Don't they have the right, the legitimate expectation that the offender will be identified?

Thankyou!! Took the words out of my mouth!!!! +1

[spudchucka]

Hmm.. paranoia ?

You name 5 countries that have these powers and have NOT degenerated into police states. I bet I can match you and raise you.

Put it in perspective, all they are proposing is taking a DNA sample off criminals upon arrest. If they are subsequently acquitted the sample gets deleted, which is exactly what happens with fingerprints taken upon arrest now. Don't offend and you won't become part of the databank.

It will only be for imprisonable offences so the clean cut guy that gets pissed and ends up getting locked up for disorderly or breaching a liquor ban has nothing to be concerned about.

[scumdog]

It's true that the price of freedom is to be ever vigilant. So if a national database of all NZers DNA was established, then there would need to be an independant controlling body.

The problem for us as a society is that our individual freedoms are always limited by the requirements of the community we live in. We may only drive on one side of the road. We must pay taxes to support each other - schools, roads etc.

People often shout long and loud about freedoms and rights without recognising there are obligations too. If we want peace and prosperity, a safe society, then we have to accept some rules. If a DNA database helps find offenders then that surely is a good thing.

So far most of this discussion has focused on paranoia about police stopping you on the side of the road and fitting you up for some burglary/rape/murder. As others have said, DNA is only one evidential element - there still needs to be other corroborating evidence. Look at the OJ Simpson case - they had Simpson's DNA - and he was acquitted!

And don't forget the victims of crime whom most of you ignore. Don't they have the right, the legitimate expectation that the offender will be identified?

C'mon Winston, you're making way too much sense - this IS KB after all where paranoid :angry2: is the norm!!

[Skyryder]

Put it in perspective, all they are proposing is taking a DNA sample off criminals upon arrest. If they are subsequently acquitted the sample gets deleted, which is exactly what happens with fingerprints taken upon arrest now. Don't offend and you won't become part of the databank.

It will only be for imprisonable offences so the clean cut guy that gets pissed and ends up getting locked up for disorderly or breaching a liquor ban has nothing to be concerned about.


I personaly don't have a problem with a DNA data base, as I can not see how it can be abused, but the scenario that you picture has a bad habit of getting expanded. Once the police get a new tool they soon think up reasons for it to be introduced to a new level.

The speed camera's are classic example of this where they were only to be deployed in areas with signs and once the public got used to this then down came the signs.

I suspect that this may also be the case further down track.


Skyryder

[Ixion]

Put it in perspective, all they are proposing is taking a DNA sample off criminals upon arrest. If they are subsequently acquitted the sample gets deleted, which is exactly what happens with fingerprints taken upon arrest now. Don't offend and you won't become part of the databank.

It will only be for imprisonable offences so the clean cut guy that gets pissed and ends up getting locked up for disorderly or breaching a liquor ban has nothing to be concerned about.

Indeed? It is widely acknowledged (except for the official line pof course) that this does not happen. There is a snowball's chance in hell of getting your DNA records off the database once they are on. (Is the reference to the sample being deleted merely confused or is there a subtle 'gotcha' there. The deletion of the sample is irrelevant what must be deleted is both the sample and the computer stored profile generated from it)

How about you give a list of some of the offences that CAN be imprisonable , though they never are?

[jrandom]

How about you give a list of some of the offences that CAN be imprisonable , though they never are?

My conviction last year for driving on a suspended licence, for one. Maximum potential sentence of three months imprisonment.

Welcome to the Brave New World, Mr Random, you rode your motorbike on the wrong day. Step right this way and join the database...

[scumdog]

My conviction last year for driving on a suspended licence, for one. Maximum potential sentence of three months imprisonment.

Welcome to the Brave New World, Mr Random, you rode your motorbike on the wrong day. Step right this way and join the database...

Just in case some are naive types are unaware: With conviction of certain offences it is mandatory to provide a DNA sample - to the extent you can be restrained while the sample is being taken.

[jrandom]

Just in case some are naive types are unaware: With conviction of certain offences it is mandatory to provide a DNA sample - to the extent you can be restrained while the sample is being taken.

There's a Highway Patrol officer in the Waikato that I wouldn't mind providing a DNA sample or two for.

(She can even restrain me if she prefers.)

[Ixion]

This thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=91918) provides a perfect illustration of why police demands for increased powers must always be steadfastly resisted. If granted they will most certainly be used as a ratchet for further demands, and immediately abused.

[scumdog]

This thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=91918) provides a perfect illustration of why police demands for increased powers must always be steadfastly resisted. If granted they will most certainly be used as a ratchet for further demands, and immediately abused.

Why not fight to wind-back the laws already there - like getting the speed-limit lowered to 80kph and the breath-alcohol limit raised and seat-belts and air-bags removed from cars, voluntary helmet wearing....why stop there, make heroin legal again and allow the carrying of pistols.....oh the world would be so good if all those silly old laws could be repealed

[Winston001]

C'mon Winston, you're making way too much sense - this IS KB after all where paranoid :angry2: is the norm!!

Sorry mate, silly me, must try harder.....:2guns:


Put it in perspective, all they are proposing is taking a DNA sample off criminals upon arrest. If they are subsequently acquitted the sample gets deleted.......



Say whut?? :no: What a pack of pansies. Who decided that? Here we have an excellent chance to build up a national database and some limpwristed liberals want to throw half the info away????? :shutup:

[Ixion]

Many of those provide further examples of the erosion of civil freedom (and , in some cases, of the people reclaiming back some of their lost freedom).

Breath alcohol limit? And we have all seen how, on every occasion , the wowsers use it as a stalking horse for their campaign to introduce prohibition. And previous alcohol laws are even more illustrative. Like 6 oclock closing. The wowsers lost the prohibition campaign after the War, but did manage to get 6 oclock closing. And what a nasty piece of work that was, until the people finally cried "enough" and had it repealed.

Heroin. yes indeed. And when the laws prohiting it were introduced they were brought in in exactly the same way as the current proposal. And, who could object to a law that only affected those nasty heroin addicts. Then , bit by bit , it was extended. And now we see the same laws covering marijuana, "party pills' and goodness knows what else. Yes. I would have them repealed. And there are people, some not so far from here (even a politcal party) who argue strongly for the return of the right for people to go to hell in their own handbasket. I myslef have no wish to do so, but there is no valid reason why my personal decision should be enforced on others of a differing opinion.

And many parts of the world allow the carrying of pistols, there are those on this site who will argue that the permission makes those places safer and more civilised, not the reverse.

And as for helmets and seatbelts, I ahve always said, that people should wear them , but they should not be compulsory.

[spudchucka]

This thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=91918) provides a perfect illustration of why police demands for increased powers must always be steadfastly resisted. If granted they will most certainly be used as a ratchet for further demands, and immediately abused.

That thread proves nothing other than the fact that young cops require supervision.

[spudchucka]

The same horror from the civil libertarians was splashed all over the papers and talk back radio in 1998 when the evil Govt of that time took away our life time paper licences and demanded that we all get a photo licence that was only good for a maximum of ten years.

Its not a licence its an ID card, we'll all be off to concentration camps next!!!!

Oh the horror of it all, we are being plunged into the depths of Nazi Germany reincarnated upon the fair shore of the utopia of New Zealand.

The paranoia that swept the land was terrible, goodness me what will these tyrannical Govt agencies do with our digital images, the possibilities were endless.

Eleven years and a couple of governments later and I still don't feel overly oppressed by having to submit my digital image to the Govt but ho hum the paranoid half wits of the world have found a new barrow to push in the same direction.:baby:

[Ixion]

..

Eleven years and a couple of governments later and I still don't feel overly oppressed by having to submit my digital image to the Govt but ho hum the paranoid half wits of the world have found a new barrow to push in the same direction.:baby:

Perhaps you would if you were an elderly lady who had never had either drivers licence or passport. Since one or other is now , purportedly, necessary to operate a bank account. My mother had neither, so the bank refused to allow her to access her account.I spent a frustrating several hours working my way up the imbecile chain to the regional manager before that was sorted.

The drivers licence HAS become and ID card. The fears of the civil libertarians (I am not one, I don't believe in them) were justified.

And consideration of the recently exposed activities of the SIS might highlight your complacency

[McJim]

Let's foget all this "that's fair/that's not fair" bullshit an have a totalitarian dictatorship governed via a feudal system.

I'm King so what I say goes.....and I have the right to change my mind if I feel like it!

[Gubb]

And wasn't David Blain convicted on dodgy DNA evidence too?

That smarmy "magician" who trapped himself in ice? Guilty as sin.

[Ixion]

You can't have a totalitarian dictatorship governed via the feudal system. The two are mutually exclusive. A feudal king could not be a dictator.

In fact most of our freedoms and liberties (such as we have left, and those we have lamentably lost) derive from the feudal system . Remember, Magna Carta and all that . Where will we now find a modern Robert FitzWalter or WIlliam marshall ?

[Winston001]

Since one or other is now , purportedly, necessary to operate a bank account. My mother had neither, so the bank refused to allow her to access her account.I spent a frustrating several hours working my way up the imbecile chain to the regional manager before that was sorted.

The drivers licence HAS become and ID card. The fears of the civil libertarians (I am not one, I don't believe in them) were justified.

And consideration of the recently exposed activities of the SIS might highlight your complacency

Yeah I'll go along with that. The photo drivers licence has become an unofficial ID. Some older people have none and it is a pain to sort out.

But cripes Ix, didn't realise the SIS were going around opening bank accounts......!! Scary stuff indeed.....or maybe you meant that wet hen, Keith Locke. Where does it say in our law that Members of Parliament don't commit crimes? Treason? Terrorism? No automatic exemption for anyone surely. Not that I think Locke is worthy of their time.

For petes sake, the vigorous left used to consider it a badge of honour to have a police file and really knew they'd arrived if the SIS took an interest. He's made it - probably an administrative mistake in his case, but hey good luck. NZs answer to Gerry Adams. :gob:

[spudchucka]

Perhaps you would if you were an elderly lady who had never had either drivers licence or passport. Since one or other is now , purportedly, necessary to operate a bank account. My mother had neither, so the bank refused to allow her to access her account.I spent a frustrating several hours working my way up the imbecile chain to the regional manager before that was sorted.

The drivers licence HAS become and ID card. The fears of the civil libertarians (I am not one, I don't believe in them) were justified.

And consideration of the recently exposed activities of the SIS might highlight your complacency

She could have got an 18+ card.

[davereid]

Yeah I'll go along with that. The photo drivers licence has become an unofficial ID. Some older people have none and it is a pain to sort out. :gob:

Yes, dropped my 14 year old grandaugher off at the airport after the holidays. She has no drivers licence or passport.

"where is your photo ID miss ?"

What a fuss just to get a 14 year old on a plane.

No one is saying that having to have photo ID etc etc means you live in a police state.

What we ARE saying is that these are the tools of a police state. And history shows both the paraniod and observant, that over time governments almost always "clamp down on that" or "tighten up on this".

My grandfather would possibly be surprised at just how many powers we have given our masters err representatives.

[scumdog]

.

No one is saying that having to have photo ID etc etc means you live in a police state.


I should think not.
ll manner of non-governmental organisations seem to expect people to have 'photo-I.D. - or carry their passport/bith certificate with them.

[MSTRS]

All manner of non-governmental organisations seem to expect people to have 'photo-I.D. - or carry their passport/bith certificate with them.

Yet my firearms licence doesn't count. A national register, complete with photo. I feel quite ripped off...

[Pixie]

Yep, DNA profiling saved his arse nicely. From a contemporary point of view if someone was to go through the same process now they would be exonerated immediately rather than being imprisoned for years.

Or alternatively,a crooked cop (Hypothetical,of course.We know they don't exist in NZ) could obtain a couple of blond hairs from a victim's brush,and plant them on the accused's yacht

[scumdog]

Or alternatively,a crooked cop (Hypothetical,of course.We know they don't exist in NZ) could obtain a couple of blond hairs from a victim's brush,and plant them on the accused's yacht

Like they could also have got items handled by the suspect and planted them there too..

Or planted said hairbrush there too...

Or..

[Pixie]

Rather more so, in fact. Fingerprints are unique (or at any rate no one's found a duplicate in over 100 years).

But DNA ID , as used for law enforcement purposes, is far from unique. The degree of exactitude does not extend down to a specific unique person. The results will only show a probability of match " The DNA from this person is a million times more likely to be from the same person who left the crime artefact as a random person" . In other words, there are , statistically, four other people in the country who it could equally likely be from. And the odds go way up if there are related people.

But it is never put that way tot the jury . it is always "Scientific DNA evidence proves that the DNA came form the defendant". It "proves" no such thing (proves nothing in fact) but that's how it's always presented. And juries, being largely composed of stupid people swallow it. "It's scientific, izzn it? Must be true".

Fingerprints are unique,but the protocols for comparison only examine less than 10 points of equivalence.Whereas DNA profiles are compared over thousands of points.

WIKI: The few tests of validity of forensic fingerprinting have not been supportive of the method:

Despite the absence of objective standards, scientific validation, and adequate statistical studies, a natural question to ask is how well fingerprint examiners actually perform. Proficiency tests do not validate a procedure per se, but they can provide some insight into error rates. In 1995, the Collaborative Testing Service (CTS) administered a proficiency test that, for the first time, was “designed, assembled, and reviewed” by the International Association for Identification (IAI).The results were disappointing. Four suspect cards with prints of all ten fingers were provided together with seven latents. Of 156 people taking the test, only 68 (44%) correctly classified all seven latents.Overall, the tests contained a total of 48 incorrect identifications. David Grieve, the editor of the Journal of Forensic Identification, describes the reaction of the forensic community to the results of the CTS test as ranging from “shock to disbelief,” and added:

Errors of this magnitude within a discipline singularly admired and respected for its touted absolute certainty as an identification process have produced chilling and mind- numbing realities. Thirty-four participants, an incredible 22% of those involved, substituted presumed but false certainty for truth. By any measure, this represents a profile of practice that is unacceptable and thus demands positive action by the entire community.

What is striking about these comments is that they do not come from a critic of the fingerprint community, but from the editor of one of its premier publications.

DNA: In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect being the guilty one. This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons. Another spurious statistical argument is based on the false assumption that a 1 in 5 million probability of a match automatically translates into a 1 in 5 million probability of guilt and is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.

When using RFLP, the theoretical risk of a coincidental match is 1 in 100 billion (100,000,000,000), although the risk is actually 1 in 1000 because monozygotic twins are 0.2% of the human population. Moreover, the rate of laboratory error is almost certainly higher than thispractical , and often actual laboratory procedures do not reflect the theory under which the coincidence probabilities were computed. For example, the coincidence probabilities may be calculated based on the probabilities that markers in two samples have bands in precisely the same location, but a laboratory worker may conclude that similar—but not precisely identical—band patterns result from identical genetic samples with some imperfection in the agarose gel. However, in this case, the laboratory worker increases the coincidence risk by expanding the criteria for declaring a match. Recent studies have quoted relatively high error rates which may be cause for concern[5]. In the early days of genetic fingerprinting, the necessary population data to accurately compute a match probability was sometimes unavailable. Between 1992 and 1996, arbitrary low ceilings were controversially put on match probabilities used in RFLP analysis rather than the higher theoretically computed ones [6]. Today, RFLP has become widely disused due to the advent of more discriminating, sensitive and easier technologies.

STRs do not suffer from such subjectivity and provide similar power of discrimination (1 in 10^13 for unrelated individuals if using a full SGM+ profile) It should be noted that figures of this magnitude are not considered to be statistically supportable by scientists in the UK, for unrelated individuals with full matching DNA profiles a match probability of 1 in a billion (one thousand million) is considered statistically supportable (Since 1998 the DNA profiling system supported by The National DNA Database in the UK is the SGM+ DNA profiling system which includes 10 STR regions and a sex indicating test. However, with any DNA technique, the cautious juror should not convict on genetic fingerprint evidence alone if other factors raise doubt. Contamination with other evidence (secondary transfer) is a key source of incorrect DNA profiles and raising doubts as to whether a sample has been adulterated is a favorite defense technique. More rarely, Chimerism is one such instance where the lack of a genetic match may unfairly exclude a suspect

Chimerism is a state where an individual has tissue material from another organism within his body - an unborn sibling,or a sheep,for example

[Cynos]

Napoleon once said - never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

And that's what I fear in this. If the Police start sampling everyone arrested on charges imprisonable etc. etc., the potential for cross-contamination and/or other errors increases dramatically.

I don't think the Police would use their power evilly, but I have no problem believing that they are human, and overworked and under-resourced.

[Ixion]

She could have got an 18+ card.

Not accepted. Drivers licence, passport, firearms licence, police ID card, armed services ID card. That's it.

And as someone mentioned, not just the old people. What about a 16 year old who hasn't a drivers licence or passport?

[spudchucka]

Not accepted. Drivers licence, passport, firearms licence, police ID card, armed services ID card. That's it.

And as someone mentioned, not just the old people. What about a 16 year old who hasn't a drivers licence or passport?

Its bank policy, nothing to do with any govt department.

[spudchucka]

Fingerprints are unique,but the protocols for comparison only examine less than 10 points of equivalence.

You're out of date I'm afraid. Google "ridgeology".

[Ixion]

Its bank policy, nothing to do with any govt department.

They claim it is a requirement of the Reserve Bank. Which is a government department.

[Ixion]

I see even Granny Harold has an editorial expressing concerns about the proposal. Which speaks much. Granny also raises the significant point, that DNA is not just for identification. It can tell much about the person concerned. At an extreme, it could identify people having some "inferior" genetic characteristic. And there are people in our society who, given that information being readily available would call for laws to (at least) prevent such folk breeding (purely for their own good, of course - it always is) . It is only the present difficulty of identifying the target that stops them. They might find it hard to obtain traction as regards public acceptance, though I'm would not be too confident of that. New Zealand is not a society very accepting of difference or of the disabled.

Insurance companies are another that would find that information very useful. They could use it to identify people who might have a genetic propoensity to conditions that could be expensive for them. And armed with the information , refuse insurance to such unfortunates (who might well be unware themselves of the fact).

Once the Police have this sort of information it is quite certain that others will soon have it too.

[spudchucka]

You don't need a DNA sample to figure out who is from the shallow end of the gene pool.

You really are displaying quite spectacular levels of paranoia.

[jrandom]

You really are displaying quite spectacular levels of paranoia.

You, the reasonable and hard-working copper who just wants to get his job done, think it's paranoia.

Unfortunately, it's not you we have to worry about.

Why is it that every time laws are introduced anywhere that deprive citizens of privacy and/or liberty, people scoff and either say that:

(a) if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye), or

(b) you're paranoid, don't worry, nobody would ever dream of using these new powers unreasonably or for purposes they weren't intended for (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act).

How about those 'anti-terrorism surveillance' laws in the UK that are being used to catch people putting their rubbish out on the wrong day (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082225/March-dustbin-Stasi-Half-councils-use-anti-terror-laws-watch-people-putting-rubbish-wrong-day.html?ITO=1490)?

The intelligent citizen, unfortunately, must consider the worst-case scenario and assume that laws will be abused by those given the power to wield them, simply because human nature inevitably ensures that that will happen.

History gives the lie to your accusations of 'paranoia'.

[Clockwork]

Or alternatively,a crooked cop (Hypothetical,of course.We know they don't exist in NZ) could obtain a couple of blond hairs from a victim's brush,and plant them on the accused's yacht

.... also, it would be harder to plant fingerprints at a crimescene than it would to plant DNA

[Patrick]

Or alternatively,a crooked cop (Hypothetical,of course.We know they don't exist in NZ) could obtain a couple of blond hairs from a victim's brush,and plant them on the accused's yacht

But why? Then the real killer would still be out there.... kinda misses the reasons for catching the killer really....

[Max Preload]

But why? Then the real killer would still be out there.... kinda misses the reasons for catching the killer really....

Well, it certainly helps them cover up their incompetence in ignoring expert eye-witness statements nicely! :niceone:

"No, no - it wasn't a ketch - it was two sloops tied together! We know all about those, ah, boaty things!"

[Patrick]

Well, it certainly helps them cover up their incompetence in ignoring expert eye-witness statements nicely! :niceone:

"No, no - it wasn't a ketch - it was two sloops tied together! We know all about those, ah, boaty things!"

Ah... so the sloop did it...

Kinda ignores the cleaning with bleach (which destroys blood stains apparently) the hard to find/see hairs that were "missed" in the "cleanup" and a whole raft of other things.... Like all 12 members of a jury being convinced....

Oops... "raft" of things... it wasn't a sloop or a ketch... it was a raft...?

Silly I know... but its one of those days....:bleh:

[Max Preload]

Kinda ignores the cleaning with bleach (which destroys blood stains apparently) the hard to find/see hairs that were "missed" in the "cleanup" and a whole raft of other things.... Like all 12 members of a jury being convinced...

Weren't all twelve of Arthur Allan Thomas' trial jury all convinced too? Twice?

My personal serious misgivings about this case aside, I clean my boat with bleach inside and out every year and it lives on a trailer. Bleach kills algae.

[Skyryder]

Ah... so the sloop did it...

Kinda ignores the cleaning with bleach (which destroys blood stains apparently) the hard to find/see hairs that were "missed" in the "cleanup"

Nope not missed in the clean up but missed in the lab. It is suggested in Trial by Trickery that the hairs found in the lab on the second 'look' could have been the ones that the police lifted from Olivia's bedroom.

Try reading the book then you will have some knowledge of what you agree or disagree with, or failing that the bits about the hairs found on the tiger blanket.

Skyryder

[jahrasti]

Indeed? It is widely acknowledged (except for the official line pof course) that this does not happen. There is a snowball's chance in hell of getting your DNA records off the database once they are on. (Is the reference to the sample being deleted merely confused or is there a subtle 'gotcha' there. The deletion of the sample is irrelevant what must be deleted is both the sample and the computer stored profile generated from it)

How about you give a list of some of the offences that CAN be imprisonable , though they never are?

You are wrong and I would love for you to show me where there are examples of this? Voluntary DNA swaps are taken the time. They read a 3 page form and sign down the bottom of it. And before you crap on about them being pissed and not remembering they get a copy. Because it is voluntary they withdraw their consent at any time.(any time!) The sample can no longer be used and the sample is removed from the database.

DNA is also not just for crime. It can also be used for ID. If a body is unable to be ID then if they are on the database then it can be ID quicky. Dental can be slow and in accurate.

Remember this is for voluntary samples, as has been said sometimes some people don't have a choice to give DNA.

DNA is kept by ESR who is NOT a division of Police. They don't give the results that Police want they give facts. If they start fudging shit then no credibility in anything (EBA blood etc). It is also very expensive to actually get a sample tested as it is not done for every crime as you see in the movies, we actually have to justify the expence.

That enough from me, I had better get to work and stitch people up. Or at least eat donuts and drink copious amount of coffee.

[Patrick]

Weren't all twelve of Arthur Allan Thomas' trial jury all convinced too? Twice?

My personal serious misgivings about this case aside, I clean my boat with bleach inside and out every year and it lives on a trailer. Bleach kills algae.

So was a lawyer who knew of it... "Police planted the bullet, yep, THOMAS guilty, yep" was his call. I read YALLOPs book too, which turned me around. Then heard this. As you were, I said.....

So.... how many tourists you topped off then?


Nope not missed in the clean up but missed in the lab. It is suggested in Trial by Trickery that the hairs found in the lab on the second 'look' could have been the ones that the police lifted from Olivia's bedroom.

Try reading the book then you will have some knowledge of what you agree or disagree with, or failing that the bits about the hairs found on the tiger blanket.

Skyryder

Nah... better being uninformed and ill advised... more fun that way..... If you are right and WATSON is innocent, I will shout the beer. (and donuts).


That enough from me, I had better get to work and stitch people up. Or at least eat donuts and drink copious amount of coffee.

So.... you work for the ESR or QID?

[Winston001]

Well, it certainly helps them cover up their incompetence in ignoring expert eye-witness statements nicely! :niceone:


Presumably you are referring to the mystery two masted ketch which has never been found in the Scott Watson case.

Odd as it seems to most of us, eye-witness reports are notoriously unreliable. This has been researched and studied so don't just take my word for it.

Honest decent people can have wildly varying memories of exactly the same event.

The mystery ketch appears in none of the photos taken of the bay - and there were a lot of photos. The water taxi guy honestly believes what he says. However in the beginning he drew a sketch of a two-masted yacht and wrote "ketch?" beside it. So he wasn't at all certain then.

Over the next two days he was pressured by reporters and his story grew more detail. He became sure it was a ketch and having made that decision, his memory will now insist for the rest of his life that is what he saw. He can't back down.

[Skyryder]

Nah... better being uninformed and ill advised... more fun that way..... If you are right and WATSON is innocent, I will shout the beer. (and donuts).



Do I detect a 'smidgon' of doubt.

There's been some talk of a movie on this. Don't know what's happened but once this is made and out into the public areana you just watch the change in public opinion on this.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Presumably you are referring to the mystery two masted ketch which has never been found in the Scott Watson case.

Odd as it seems to most of us, eye-witness reports are notoriously unreliable. This has been researched and studied so don't just take my word for it.

Honest decent people can have wildly varying memories of exactly the same event.

The mystery ketch appears in none of the photos taken of the bay - and there were a lot of photos. The water taxi guy honestly believes what he says. However in the beginning he drew a sketch of a two-masted yacht and wrote "ketch?" beside it. So he wasn't at all certain then.

Over the next two days he was pressured by reporters and his story grew more detail. He became sure it was a ketch and having made that decision, his memory will now insist for the rest of his life that is what he saw. He can't back down.

It’s not just Wallaces evidence of a mystry boat but other witnesses as well

Morresey is adamant that the mystery boat had heaps of rope on board and Dyer’s statement about reaching up as the Niaad came along side. Both these statements are in contrast to Watson’s sloop.

Other witness saw a Ketch and reported this to the Police yet. The type of misinformation that was given to the jury.

Here’s and example ‘Despite the wide media coverage that the Police were looking for a ketch, no such ketch was found or no such sighting was given to the police. Pope never seriously looked for a ketch and to claim that no information was given to the police of a ketch was untrue.

It's getting off topic so will not elaborate.

Skyryder

[Patrick]

Do I detect a 'smidgon' of doubt.

There's been some talk of a movie on this. Don't know what's happened but once this is made and out into the public areana you just watch the change in public opinion on this.


Skyryder

Ohhhh cool... will it be a cartoon?


... The type of misinformation that was given to the jury.

Here’s and example ‘Despite the wide media coverage that the Police were looking for a ketch, no such ketch was found or no such sighting was given to the police. Pope never seriously looked for a ketch and to claim that no information was given to the police of a ketch was untrue.

It's getting off topic so will not elaborate.

Skyryder

A type of misinformation Morressy came up with.

I recall a national notice "seeking all ketches in your town...." and a description of what they were looking for. Does it exist?

But you're right.... :Offtopic:

It is KB though, so quite normal.......:niceone:

[A_Mans_Ruin]

Having said that, I still don't believe they should be able to take your DNA in the new manner. Either take everyones DNA, and start taking it from birth, or use it when it's required to tip the balance. If it's good enough to start matching up previous crimes, then why not sample everyone and use it to rip the heart out of the criminal element in this country? Probably because it's not a magic tool like CSI makes out...

DNA is takin at birth, The Newborn Metabolic screening tests done at 48 hours old. After these cards have been tested they are put into indefinate storage. Courts can order these tests to be used for anything, Paternity test, DNA testing etc etc. If you dont request the cards back after your infant has had the test then Big Brother will keep them. This isnt a new scheme that has just started either....

[Winston001]

DNA is takin at birth, The Newborn Metabolic screening tests done at 48 hours old. After these cards have been tested they are put into indefinate storage. Courts can order these tests to be used for anything, Paternity test, DNA testing etc etc. If you dont request the cards back after your infant has had the test then Big Brother will keep them. This isnt a new scheme that has just started either....

Hmmm.....you are right about the tests at birth but the DNA isn't read - and that is the really valuable information. But I don't think those blood samples can be used for DNA today.

DNA isn't a tough stable molecule. It degrades unless the cell containing it is somehow preserved and protected, or the cell is replicated in a culture. For example, the Jurassic Park idea that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from blood sucked up by mosquitoes stuck in amber is science fiction. Great idea but no-one has found DNA that way - yet.

The hospital samples aren't grown on a culture and preserved - so far as I know, and therefore older samples will be of limited use.

Incidentally, never heard of these tests being used later for any evidential proof so am interested in why you say that happens? Always something new to learn. :niceone:

[A_Mans_Ruin]

There was a case just recently that went to court, a father was trying to prove that he indeed was. The mother would not consent to DNA testing of the child, so it was ruled by the courts to use the NMST for this.
Police can access these as well. Im sure there are limits and regulations for storage of the cards but they can be used for DNA purposes.

[want-a-harley]

But I don't think those blood samples can be used for DNA today.

DNA isn't a tough stable molecule. It degrades unless the cell containing it is somehow preserved and protected, or the cell is replicated in a culture.

Is the blood stored frozen (-20C) if so it should be fine for profiling purposes.

DNA does degrade but DNA testing forensic purposes uses small regions of the DNA so can be used (with varying degrees of success) on degraded samples. Hence success in cold case review of old cases prior to current methods.

[popelli]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

[want-a-harley]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

The data obtained for forensic profiling purposes tells nothing of the issues stated here.

If insurance companies/employers want genetic information they could (in a distant bleak future) just refuse insurance without a blood sample.

[Winston001]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people

You are referring to gene sequencing which is a jump beyond simple DNA reading. However your points are well made and indeed this is what the future holds.

Having said that, there was a lot of fear about the Wanganui police computer when it first started in the early 1970s. Information passed to other government agencies, the CIA, debt collectors etc. Didn't come to anything and the info is harder to get today than ever.

As an example, employers can't even ask for your criminal record anymore. So I think our genetic sequences are safe for a few decades.

[spudchucka]

DNA is takin at birth, The Newborn Metabolic screening tests done at 48 hours old. After these cards have been tested they are put into indefinate storage. Courts can order these tests to be used for anything, Paternity test, DNA testing etc etc. If you dont request the cards back after your infant has had the test then Big Brother will keep them. This isnt a new scheme that has just started either....

Not true. The cards are kept but they can't lawfully be used for any purpose other than to check for the genetic defects for which they are reportedly taken in the first place.

Courts can not order their re-use for alternative purposes without extremely good reason. Even if they had good reason to do so the preferred method would be to issue a compulsion order so there really isn't any reason why the infant heel prick cards would be of the slightest value to law enforcement.

[spudchucka]

DNA isn't a tough stable molecule. It degrades unless the cell containing it is somehow preserved and protected, or the cell is replicated in a culture. For example, the Jurassic Park idea that dinosaur DNA could be extracted from blood sucked up by mosquitoes stuck in amber is science fiction. Great idea but no-one has found DNA that way - yet.

If this was true the guy Jules Mikus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Mikus) would never have been convicted of murdering the Jensen girl in Napier and David Doherty (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/194363) would never have been exonerated of his rape conviction.

[spudchucka]

the trouble with DNA databases is that they will be used for far more than just solving crime they will extend dna data into health care and predicting peoples future misfortune

once everybody is on the DNA data base this data will be sold to insurance companies (to recover admin costs) who will then use this data to see who is most likely to get cancer and other diseases and load insurance premiums accordingly

eventually this leads to an insurance underclass of uninsurable people whom the health service will not want either as it costs them money

ultimately employers will find that these people are sick from work more often and suppling dna profile will become part of job selection as it is in their interests not to employ "defective" people
You've watched too many movies. Stick to watching the Simpson's, it's much closer to reality!

[Winston001]

If this was true the guy Jules Mikus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Mikus) would never have been convicted of murdering the Jensen girl in Napier and David Doherty (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/194363) would never have been exonerated of his rape conviction.

Ah - now we are talking about forensic sampling which is a different matter. Chain of custody, grown on culture, samples carefully stored.

What I don't know is how the infant heel-prick blood is analysed and how it is stored. Also how rigorous the identification procedures are, to ensure the blood is correctly matched with the baby. Mixups happen.

[spudchucka]

All that's done with those heel prick samples is they are analysed for genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis etc. Its called the Guthrie test.

[AD345]

hadn't noticed this thread before.

This proposal is (IMO) a bad idea. Irrespective of the well meaning and hardworking intentions of individual police officers this is government surveillance taken to an extreme. I can understand gathering DNA as evidence against a specific individual for a particular crime - it is a tool after all.
What bunches my britches is giving the police the power to take a sample and use it to go trolling for whatever takes their fancy. So a person with no criminal convictions at all can be arrested for any "imprisonable" offence, have their DNA taken and this can then be used as part of any investigation for into anything else. Doesn't have to be anything to do with the reason. In fact the proposal goes further...

Under the changes, police will no longer need approval from a High Court judge before someone is forced to provide DNA before they are convicted, with samples immediately matched against samples from unsolved crimes.
...so as a matter of procedure all samples taken will be placed into the database for immediate cross referencing.

I can hear the usual "if you have nothing to hide blah blah blah" wankers bleating now.

You don't know if you have anything to hide or not. It is not hard to imagine scenarios where an innocent parties DNA may be found at the scene of a crime.

What then for the presumption of innocence?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" I heard someone say.

Yep - it is. Vigilance of authority - not your fellow citizens mate.



Oh - and this guy:


*snip* I would far rather convict 1 innocent man (even it was me - and yes I would fight to clear my name) than let 10 (more) scumbags walk the streets preying on my family or friends.

is an idiot.

[Winston001]

hadn't noticed this thread before.

This proposal is (IMO) a bad idea. Irrespective of the well meaning and hardworking intentions of individual police officers this is government surveillance......

You don't know if you have anything to hide or not. It is not hard to imagine scenarios where an innocent parties DNA may be found at the scene of a crime.

What then for the presumption of innocence?

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

Nothing wrong with eternal vigilance. The thing is we live in a complex society and for the common good have to accept certain restraints on our freedom. The law which says "keep left" is one example, you might want to drive on the right but you aren't allowed to.

DNA is only one piece of evidence - a strong piece but as seen in the OJ Simpson case, not conclusive. The prosecution always need to be able to back up the DNA with proximity, knowledge of the victim, witness statements, other forensic stuff.

[AD345]

Nothing wrong with eternal vigilance.

BY whom and of whom and how?

You seem to be skating around this quote a little


The thing is we live in a complex society and for the common good have to accept certain restraints on our freedom. The law which says "keep left" is one example, you might want to drive on the right but you aren't allowed to.

A law designed to prevent citizens from killing each other by accident (or otherwise) is hardly an example to use as justification for a law which seems to only expand the powers of the state to surveil its populace

Must try harder

[spudchucka]

Just don't be a dumb arse and get yourself arrested and you won't have to be part of this Govt oppression of personal freedoms.

[AD345]

Just don't be a dumb arse and get yourself arrested and you won't have to be part of this Govt oppression of personal freedoms.


Because only dumb arses EVER get arrested.


Right?

[want-a-harley]

What bunches my britches is giving the police the power to take a sample and use it to go trolling for whatever takes their fancy. So a person with no criminal convictions at all can be arrested for any "imprisonable" offence, have their DNA taken and this can then be used as part of any investigation for into anything else. Doesn't have to be anything to do with the reason. In fact the proposal goes further...

...so as a matter of procedure all samples taken will be placed into the database for immediate cross referencing.
.

You make an interesting point and one that most people are perhaps concerned about. In practice this is unlikely to happen due to cost/resources. DNA testing is not cheap and while it can be quick it is not that quick. In the UK you'd be looking at a week turnaround from sampling/processing/searching database etc, liklely longer here as it's done by one (government) company (no competition hence slower). Plus you've got the plods time/paperwork. So if someone is unlikely to be guilty of something more serious it's unlikely to be worth the time/expense.

However, if it is like the UK where if you are dismissed, found innocent or the charges dropped and it is near impossible to get your info of the database then there are problems especially as then there can be a push to build the database. In the UK 1/5 DNA profiles on the database are from people innocent of crimes.

[scumdog]

In the UK 1/5 DNA profiles on the database are from people innocent of crimes.

And this 20% innocent of crime on the DNA database have been disadvantaged by it how??

[Ixion]

By the risk of being put in the frame when the cops are looking for a suspect.

"Right PC Plod, we've got DNA from the crime scene. See if it matches anyone on the database"

"No EXACT match Sargeant Snakey, but this guy is sort of similar"

"Hm right. Not a *lot* of difference. And he lives more or less in the right area. Sort of anyway. It could be him. And we don't have anyone else . So let's see if we can make a case for him being the perpetrator"

Not to hard to get almost anyone convicted nowadays if teh cops put their mind to it.

[scumdog]

By the risk of being put in the frame when the cops are looking for a suspect.

"Right PC Plod, we've got DNA from the crime scene. See if it matches anyone on the database"

"No EXACT match Sargeant Snakey, but this guy is sort of similar"

"Hm right. Not a *lot* of difference. And he lives more or less in the right area. Sort of anyway. It could be him. And we don't have anyone else . So let's see if we can make a case for him being the perpetrator"

Not to hard to get almost anyone convicted nowadays if teh cops put their mind to it.

Your above scenario is fantasy at its worst.

You could say the same about using fingerprints, personal identification, fibres etc ad infinitum.

[Ixion]

Your above scenario is fantasy at its worst.

You could say the same about using fingerprints, personal identification, fibres etc ad infinitum.


Not so. Fingerprints are (if a good set be matched) a definative Yes/No. DNA testing is never definative. It's always "this specimen is X% more likely to be form the same person as this one, than one from a random memeber of the population" .The devil is in those percentages. For instance DNA testing will have great difficulty distinguishing between family memebers. Fingerprints have no such difficulty.

So, if Harry's DNA is in the database and the cops find DNA at a crime scene , which , unbeknown to them, comes from Harry's half brother Harvey, then Harry is going to come up as a strong suspect when the database is searched. Once a suspect, the cops will start fitting a case round him. Whereas Harvey's fingerprints will be completely different to Harry's. No risk of the latter being fitted up by fingerprints. Much risk from DNA.


And we do not (yet) require people to contribute their personal fibres to a database. Nor is the driver's licence , our closest thing to a personal ID (as yet) officially recognised as such.

[scumdog]

Not so. Fingerprints are (if a good set be matched) a definative Yes/No. DNA testing is never definative. It's always "this specimen is X% more likely to be form the same person as this one, than one from a random memeber of the population" .The devil is in those percentages. For instance DNA testing will have great difficulty distinguishing between family memebers. Fingerprints have no such difficulty.

So, if Harry's DNA is in the database and the cops find DNA at a crime scene , which , unbeknown to them, comes from Harry's half brother Harvey, then Harry is going to come up as a strong suspect when the database is searched. Once a suspect, the cops will start fitting a case round him. Whereas Harvey's fingerprints will be completely different to Harry's. No risk of the latter being fitted up by fingerprints. Much risk from DNA.


And we do not (yet) require people to contribute their personal fibres to a database. Nor is the driver's licence , our closest thing to a personal ID (as yet) officially recognised as such.

Re the personal identification: I was refering to eye-witnesses, "Yer guv'nor, it were that one armed man wot done it" sort of thing.

And sadly a lot of General Public (tm) can't tell Casius Clay from Santa Claus. ("I dunno, they all look so much alike").

The other stuff I mentioned was just ways of linking somebody to a crime.

[Ixion]

You nicely state the problem.

If some bystander says "Oh, I think it was that guy Harry done it, looked like him anyway" you receive that information with a degree of caution and scepticism. Well, maybe, Or maybe it was actually Cassius Clay. We'll check it out. And all other cops would be as cautious about assumptions based on such identification - it is notoriously dubious.

But if someone in a white coat says "This DNA sample from Harry is one million times more likely to be that of the perpetrator than one from a random patagonian yak-herder", you (OK, maybe not you, but certainly a very large percentage of cops), will immediately say to themselves " Shit - one million times more likely ! - well, doesn't get any more convincing than that. And its scientific, so it must be right. No problem getting a jury to convict on that basis. OK let's go pick up this Harry guy"

[scumdog]

You nicely state the problem.

If some bystander says "Oh, I think it was that guy Harry done it, looked like him anyway" you receive that information with a degree of caution and scepticism. Well, maybe, Or maybe it was actually Cassius Clay. We'll check it out. And all other cops would be as cautious about assumptions based on such identification - it is notoriously dubious.

But if someone in a white coat says "This DNA sample from Harry is one million times more likely to be that of the perpetrator than one from a random patagonian yak-herder", you (OK, maybe not you, but certainly a very large percentage of cops), will immediately say to themselves " Shit - one million times more likely ! - well, doesn't get any more convincing than that. And its scientific, so it must be right. No problem getting a jury to convict on that basis. OK let's go pick up this Harry guy"

Still got to have a jury believe the same.

Oh, and put forwards all manner of other compelling evidence type shit too.

[want-a-harley]

[QUOTE=Ixion;2025856]Not so. Fingerprints are (if a good set be matched) a definative Yes/No. DNA testing is never definative. It's always "this specimen is X% more likely to be form the same person as this one, than one from a random memeber of the population" .The devil is in those percentages. For instance DNA testing will have great difficulty distinguishing between family memebers. Fingerprints have no such difficulty.

QUOTE]

If you get a good DNA sample it can descriminate as much if not more than a fingerprint. If you get good quality single source DNA (such as blood) then you can descriminate even between siblings. The fact you can apply a percentage to DNA profiling is because a larger independent scientific community has examined it unlike fingerprints which is a bit of an old boys club.

For an interesting read on why fingerprints aren't all they cracked up to be read this from the new yorker

http://www.michaelspecter.com/pdf/fingerprint.pdf

[spudchucka]

Because only dumb arses EVER get arrested.


Right?

Some people are born that way, others graduate through their stupidity.