They should start sampling babies at birth. Through natural progression, almost everyone's DNA would be on file within 75 years. 99% of crimes solved within days as a result. No brainer
DNA compulsory
- Thread starter Fletch
- Start date
squashjoe
Striker
Fear not said he for mighty dread.
Surely the state has the right to put you on trial if if believes you have committed a crime
Deleted User 2893
Striker
Exactly. I do agree with a compulsory national database though, not only will it have an increase in detection rates for major crime but it has the potential to also act as a deterrent if someone knows their DNA is on record. Unfortunately I don't think we will ever reach a point when enough control measures will be put in place for it to ever come into being.
Typhoonftm
Striker
What they gonna do? Clone ya?
squashjoe
Striker
Good luck with climbing that promotion ladder.
The state has our medical record, blood type etc and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they already have our dna profile
T
The Exile
Guest
What they gonna do? Clone ya?
Having such perfect DNA as mine on record would make them redouble their cloning efforts
Seriously though, as technologies to replicate DNA becomes cheaper and more widely available the danger to innocent people increases.
Not concerns. It's a certainty they'd sell it.
You'd need to put extremely rigorous controls around what could and could not be done with DNA, and properly develop the law and understanding around what DNA does and does not prove.
You'd probably need to watch carefully for the first law and order spunktrumpet politician to suggest taking the use of the DNA database to a fascist level, and take them out and shoot them. And then the first corrupt arsehole politician who suggests selling our DNA off, and have them shot as well, along with several unscrupulous party donors.
And even after you've done that you'd need to find a project team and IT supplier who could actually deliver a government project of this sensitivity successfully. Which don't exist.
You'd probably need to watch carefully for the first law and order spunktrumpet politician to suggest taking the use of the DNA database to a fascist level, and take them out and shoot them. And then the first corrupt arsehole politician who suggests selling our DNA off, and have them shot as well, along with several unscrupulous party donors.
And even after you've done that you'd need to find a project team and IT supplier who could actually deliver a government project of this sensitivity successfully. Which don't exist.
WildTurkey
Midfield
I always thought it was compulsory to have DNA
houst69
Striker
Should be taken at birth for everyone and stored on a database
the veteran
Midfield
Wouldnt trust this government with fuck all at this moment in time
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Because sniffing arses is for dogs I'll sell you my DNA £1 for every quark.
cormorant
Goalkeeper
Disagree DNA taken at birth. Those who conduct a life of crime now would know or try best to get around it., if been convicted before. Take the DNA when a suspect. Not when born. Present rules if found innocent or charges dropped, DNA destroyed. You are offered to witness it but it could be Villa pop for all the person knows. Best thing dont get in the situation. They could be taking it at birth anyway now for all we know.
D
Deleted member 40035
Guest
Aliens
If the person lives in Stanley you could just take one persons and you would have everyone’s. they are so interlinked after all
PTR
Striker
Scotsmackem
Striker
Until insurance, mortgage companies or workplaces get hold of the information and use that to descriminate against certain hereditary conditions.
Or about a hundred other reasons but let's start with that one
This, you can know for a fact if it's not a suspects DNA. But you can never conclusively prove it is a suspects. Of course it can be supported with other evidence
Last edited:
