DNA law change

[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:Me]

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

[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

[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

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......