Guilty until proven... guiltyFollow

As part of my new job, I have to write a briefing-paper-type-thing on the UK National DNA Database (NDNAD). It's all quite insane.

A bit of background info: The NDNAD has existed in the UK for over 10 years, and most countries in the world have something similar: DNA samples are taken from convicted criminals, from which some company extracts a DNA profile, which is then stored on a database. When a new crime appears, they take the DNA found on the crime scene, and stick it in the database to see it if matches with any of the criminals DNA.

It can also work in different ways, using DNA to exonerate someone, or using some new criminal's DNA to solve an old unresolved case, or putting in a crime scene DNA and finding it matches to some criminal already in the database. So far so good.

In the UK, however, the governemnt has decided it would be a good idea to take the DNA of every single person who is arrested, for any kind of crime, whether they are later found guilty or not. And of course, their DNA profile is stored on the database... for ever. Obvisouly, this includes children, as long as they're over 10 years old, cos we're nice like that.

This has been going on for 7 years now. The result is that the NDNAD has over 4 million profiles on it, though some are duplicates so maybe only 2-3 million "unique" profiles. 40% of the UK's black men population is on the database, as opposed to 8% for whites. 25% of the database's entries are for under-18s.

Obviously this raises questions: about racism, about ethics, about the concept of being innocent until proven guilty. Theses are the "obvious" problems.

There are some more pernicious ones too, though. This being the UK, all the DNA extraction is done by private companies, who can keep the DNA profiles and samples they extract for ever. There have been cases of industrial espionage and DNA theft in those companies. These companies have also done some research on the DNA samples they hold, for exemple to discover if you can tell someone's ethnic origin through their DNA (Answer: yes, you can. As well as their approximate age, sex, genetic disorders and propensity for certain diseases).

As for the effectiveness of the Database, it's only really useful in volume crimes (like burglary), or murder and rape. In total, DNA investigation is used in 0.8% of all criminal investigations.

The UK being in the EU, however, some people have cleverly taken their case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing its an invasion of privacy to have one's DNA kept on record eventhough one is innocent. The tabloids are screaming that Brussels (or Strasbourg, in this case) is pissing all over the UK's sovereignty, eventhough the judgment won't come out for a year. Were it negative, the UK would be forced to destroy all the DNA samples and profiles of people that weren't convicted of a crime.

The only alternative, which many people argue for, is to have everyone on the database, all of the UK's population, innocent and guilty.

Personally, I hope the ECHR says its illegal, and the UK is forced to destroy all the innocent's people DNA samples, like they do in most countries (including the US). The implications of a governemnt holding all of its citizens DNA information is slightly scary.

But I'm a commie liberal, so it's obvious I'd think like this. What do you think?




Edited, Mar 12th 2008 12:12pm by RedPhoenixxx

Unless one implied that the police isn't entirely objective in their decision to arrest someone or not.

I doubt the Macpherson report alone was enough to dispell the "institutional racism" the police suffers from.

Having said that, the UK police is a lot less racist than the French police. I know that's a bit like saying that hippies are a lot less violent than the *****, but still. It's something.

Surely you're not comparing a private company whose charges depend on statistical frequency, with a public body who's supposed to provide a similar service to all its population without discrimination?

To put it another way, are you suggesting that the reason why 40% of young black men are on the database (as opposed to 8% of whites) is because it's proportional to each race's involvement in crime?

Yeah, except the top of your house, or the outside of it, is visible to anyone who walks near. It doesn't contain information specific to you, or anything anyone could use to harm/help you.

DNA, on the other hand, is a bit different. Think about the impact it would have if insurance companies could have access to it. And not just to yours, but to anyone's. The current insurance system wouldn't survive this, not in the UK, and certainly not in the US.

The information contained in there is huge. And we've only just started scratching the surface of that technology.

You could wait until you're actually accused of something...or are you just trying to save time later here?

Nexa

perhaps the ONLY issue I would have here.. is IF people commonly went around stole my DNA and cloned me....

what other harm is it going to cause? are "they" going to figure out how to make a Kelvy Killing germ based on my DNA? I wish I was that important.

It's just another invasion of privacy, that's all. The "who's it going to hurt mentality" is similar to the "it's fine for them to tap our phones/track us via GPS/video tape us if we're not doing anything wrong, right?" I want as few people looking at my medical records as necessary, for example, even though there's nothing weird on them. I don't want people looking up my criminal history without a good reason, even though there's nothing on it. Why? Because it's none of their ******* business.

Nexa

My bad, mixed up arrest and conviction rates.

Yes, and hence it's completely different from the police. Seriously, I don't mean to be insulting cos I like you, but that's a gbaji comparison.



The two are inextracibly linked. And it wasn't "stamped on". Today, still, a black man is 7 times more likely to get stopped and searched than a white person. And that's 9 years after the Macpherson report, and 23 years after the Brixton riots. What happens if a part of the population is disproportionally stopped and searched? Maybe that they will be disproportionally represented in the criminal justice system? Maybe?



Well please find them, because I call absolute bs on that one. In the meantime, we can use these figures:



You can't tell me it's not some form of racism...



I agree, but you shouldn't block your eyes and ears to such an obvious fact either. Check the figures. It's not a coincidence.

They should make the roof of sex offenders homes show in bright red.

Getting DNA is easy enough if one wants it, but keeping a data-base on peoples DNA that was acquired for whatever reason seems to stepping over the line of equality, as those peoples DNA is then subject to a search, and possibly false correlation, with a crime.

When my kids were in elementary school, the police came to their school for 'safety day' to teach them to be safe. Part of the deal was taking the kids finger-prints and having them on file in case the kid should ever go missing. I've kinda always wondered what happened to them files??

I'm am in no way doubting you figures Red but where are all these people because honestly i've never met anyone who has commited a serious crime that i know of... 54 million white people in britian that make about 1,100,000 serious offenders.

Maybe what i consider a serious crime is different to those included in the figures.

I'm going to bow out know admiting I WUZ WONG! and volunteer to have my DNA added to any record the govenment wants it added to.

I think the key here is that its a double edged sword, the database could be used both to convict you or to exonerate you of crimes. Therefore getting into the database no matter what path takes you there is a good thing. There is no need for the police to go questioning every black man when a woman is raped and murdered, they can just wait for a DNA match. Therefore more innocent people can be left un-profiled and un-molested by the the criminal justice system. That is as long as you are black, with whites so disparagingly under represented in this database, unfortunate innocent white folks will be more likely to be subject to rough hand of the law when a white suspect for a crime is sought. We need to see a more equal representation of whites in this database.

The gubbernment has my DNA and my fingerprints, and retina scans, and probably a plaster cast of my **** they took while I was sleeping.

From an absolute privacy standpoint I see this as wrong, but then I'd feel the same way about fingerprints and I think you'd be hard pressed to make this argument there, that people's fingerprint records should be destroyed if they're not convicted. The reason DNA is easier to make an argument about is because it's new and shiny and confusing to people.