DNA compulsory

Paddy O'Dors

Striker
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...
I sat on a jury a few years ago and the defendants movements were tracked from Worthing to Devon by their mobiles saying "hello" and "goodbye" to various mobile phone masts along the route. Circumstancial of course but with all the other evidence led to a pretty safe conviction.

I think you can't be convicted on DNA evidence alone though.
 
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????
If anything it’s an argument against because it proves it can be gamed.
 
Pretty much aye, would be like cutting a page every time there was a particular word then comparing the size of the different piles of paper at the end. Probably not the best comparison but I'm knackered. You're bound to have a few books that are close to the same but it does narrow it down. It's certainly not going to solve every unsolved murder instantly though
Do they still do restriction analysis in forensics? Might have thought actual sequencing would be cheap enough now but I guess not :lol:
If you delve into that properly you'll note that the headline is misleading. Their DNA sequence remained fundamentally the same, but differences in expression levels were identified for 7% of genes.

That's a fairly well known and predictable phenomenon when exposed to unusual environmental conditions.
 
Last edited:

the boot

Midfield
The stupid ones might. Not every wrongun is a criminal mastermind.
I get what you’re saying and I’m not into all the conspiracy stuff but my worry is data breaches and misuse. And I think the cost would be staggering considering it cost £100 for us to get a passport which has minimal info on. There’s name changes, movements, people with the same name, deaths. Marriages Atm all these are paid for by us and all together cost a few bob. I think any system could be easily exploited considering most people on the list would be law abiding citizens and also taking into account the crimes that are solved without this database. Very small amount of criminals are gonna be caught by this.
 
Last edited:

sidneyeric

Striker
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
Not quite, Ive read quite a bit about miscarriage of justice, given the current state of policing and the corruption in the police force it might be better for you if you shut the fuck up, Carl Beech ring a bell ? anyway he's an article from the UK it's 1 of many.
 

errant

Striker
More people need to read 1984.
having read michael mansfields book, DNA in itself is a wonderful thing - however the problem from the judiciary point of view is that human's have to take the sample, humans process the sample and humans interrupt the results... and humans are infallible.
 

Morse

Striker
I see the ‘if you’ve nothing to hide’ argument is thrown straight in again..

Some people are incapable of deep thought, see a suggestion that has massive ramifications for liberty and human rights, and straight away its ‘well, you’ve nowt to fear if you’re not a wrong’un’.

There’s posters on here who have stated in death penalty threads that a few innocents being executed shouldn’t stand in the way of reinstating the death penalty. It’s incredible how cavalier some people are when it comes to human rights.

To add to all the other objections already stated because of the obvious problems with the idea of compulsory DNA sampling, I can just imagine the huge shift in the relationship between us and the government when people are forced to attend a centre to submit to giving a DNA sample, whether you like it or not. What happens if you refuse? Prison? Fines? Physically forced into submitting?

That’s not the sort of country I want to live in. It stinks of Nazi Germany and North Korea. It’s like assuming every single person is a potential serious criminal.

By all means take DNA samples from every criminal, but I’m not a criminal and I’m not going to be treated like one.
Would prince Harry and prince Charles have to give DNA samples ?
:lol: Naughty naughty!
 
Last edited:

maghater

Winger
Good old US of A, police were allowed to access one of these ancestry web sites where you submit a DNA sample to see if any other members are related. Cops were able to ban a suspect not because his DNA was on the data base, but two of his cousins were. So basically you could have committed a historic crime and left a small sample of DNA a few decades later a relative could give the police a sample and you could end up getting captured.
 
Do they still do restriction analysis in forensics? Might have thought actual sequencing would be cheap enough now but I guess not :lol:


If you delve into that properly you'll note that the headline is misleading. Their DNA sequence remained fundamentally the same, but differences in expression levels were identified for 7% of genes.

That's a fairly well known and predictable phenomenon when exposed to unusual environmental conditions.
The real challenge is that this complex area will need to be put to people who don't fully understand it, namely the Home Secretary of the day, the parliament passing the law, and the lawyers and jury interpreting the evidence. Potentially flawed conclusions can be drawn from that evidence by people treating it as holy writ and not applying sufficient critical analysis to an expert witness who may or may not be the new Roy Meadow.

And of course the fact that the chances of that DNA database only being handled by competent people who can be trusted are zero.
 

duff_man

Striker
Not quite, Ive read quite a bit about miscarriage of justice, given the current state of policing and the corruption in the police force it might be better for you if you shut the fuck up, Carl Beech ring a bell ? anyway he's an article from the UK it's 1 of many.
Check out billy big bollocks here.

You are always spouting off on threads regarding court cases stating you know what is the truth and how the whole justice system is corrupt. You know the square root of fuck all man. You are like the little hanger on, you drop in names hoping that people will take you seriously, no one does.
 

Kent_Mackem

Striker
having read michael mansfields book, DNA in itself is a wonderful thing - however the problem from the judiciary point of view is that human's have to take the sample, humans process the sample and humans interrupt the results... and humans are infallible.
100% this, and don''t forget deliberate sabotage by state, victim or suspect.
 

Top