DNA compulsory

[squashjoe]

It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.

As predicted.

 

[the boot]

It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.

This. They can’t keep our bank details safe never mind our dna.

 

[Deleted member 40035]

it will never happen

 

[squashjoe]

It wouldn't, DNA is not the exact science most think it is, there isn't a person on this planet I'd trust to run this service.

The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.

 

[PNEFC111]

They don't take it from ye arse though .

Not yet they don’t - that day will come.

 

[sidneyeric]

The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.

Why DNA Evidence Can Be Unreliable

DNA found at a crime scene doesn't automatically mean the person matching it is guilty, say researchers of new forensics guide.

science.howstuffworks.com

Sometimes it's the forensic investigators themselves who accidentally contaminate the evidence. The guide shares the bizarre example of Adam Scott, a man wrongfully convicted of rape when his DNA was found in a genital swab. Scott's DNA was a perfect match — a one in a billion probability — and it was the only evidence used to convict him, despite Scott's claim that he was more than 200 miles (322 kilometers) away the night of the incident.

Scott spent five months in custody before the truth came out. A technician in the crime lab had reused a plastic plate that contained a sample of Scott's saliva from an unrelated "spitting incident." Phone records also corroborated Scott's claim that he was in his hometown at the time of the attack.

This one didn't....

The False Promise of DNA Testing

The forensic technique is becoming ever more common—and ever less reliable.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[squashjoe]

DNA does not prove guilt.

 

[the boot]

The reason I like it is the fact that suspects get eliminated very quickly.

I get this part of it but it’s all the stuff they would need to accompany it. I’m sure it would cost too much.

 

[squashjoe]

I get this part of it but it’s all the stuff they would need to accompany it. I’m sure it would cost too much.

Justice don't come cheap.

 

[sidneyeric]

DNA does not prove guilt.

It does because too many believe it's infallible.

 

[squashjoe]

It does because too many believe it's infallible.

It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.

 

[the boot]

Justice don't come cheap.

But your talking about data base of mostly innocent people.

 

[sidneyeric]

It really doesn't ask the boards top legal eagles.

I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..

The "CSI effect" is strong enough that many jurors in criminal trials — and even some judges — have to be convinced that DNA found at a crime scene does not automatically mean that the person matching that DNA is guilty.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

I don't need to, Ive read more than enough on it..

You have read one website article by the looks of it and that is american so not directly relevant to the UK.

Ironically whenever there is a big trial on being covered by local media you are always telling us that you know exactly who has done what and who hasn’t, your should change your username to Mr betterthanDNA

 

[TheManFromSunderland]

There was a programme on bbc 2 last night about a couple of lasses who were raped and murdered 3 years apart in the 80’s, they could not find the killer. Then came along DNA testing, they asked all the blokes in the local areas to give a sample, over 4000 did, they all proved negative, until someone overheard a lad in a local pub say he had got a mate to give his as he didn’t agree with it. The police arrested him, took the sample and he turned out to be the murderer.........possibly an argument for????

 

[JohnSmithUK]

The best bit is, people are paying to be added to DNA databases with all those family/ancestry/medical services. No way can the government ignore such an anount of data.

 

[Far Tibetan Mountain]

Or maybe a tag inserted so they know where you are at all times.
It'll end up like hunger games

Google or apple know where most people are at most times. The state can access that information if they need it.

That is already a little bit intrusive...

 

[Wilfy]

Doesn’t the level they test it to mean there could be about thirty people from the U.K. with the same result?

 

[Q_Ball]

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

Not for me I'll be driving around the wastelands hunting for Diesel.

 

[the boot]

Google or apple know where most people are at most times. The state can access that information if they need it.

That is already a little bit intrusive...

Through information that you supply. Criminals don’t do this.