DNA law change

[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 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.)