DNA law change

[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.