Europe DNA ruling resonates in UK

Source

Code:

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7765484.stm

---

Europe DNA ruling resonates in UK



By Danny Shaw
Home affairs correspondent, BBC News
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...268295_-19.jpg DNA is widely used in the UK to detect a range of crimes

The European Court of Human Rights has spoken with a strong and clear voice - retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful.
The 17 judges of Strasbourg's Grand Chamber were unanimous in their ruling, and they emphasised that the government must follow it - because on this issue it does not have much "margin of appreciation" or leeway.
The court said the UK was the only one of the 47 members of the Council of Europe to permit the "systematic and indefinite" retention of DNA samples and profiles from people who have been acquitted, though within the UK the arrangements apply only to suspects in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
However, the court signalled that the government should consider following Scotland's example.
The position there, said the judges, was of "particular significance".
Storage times
DNA profiles in Scotland are deleted once a person is cleared or not prosecuted. The only exceptions are for people suspected of certain sexual or violent offences.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...t_quote_rb.gif Hundreds of thousands of people who are already on the database, and have no criminal convictions, will be entitled to have their records removed http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...d_quote_rb.gif



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/...ashed_line.gif

DNA database 'breach of rights'

Their DNA records can be stored for three years, and for a further two years with a judge's consent.
The court pointed out that Scotland's approach was consistent with a recommendation from the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, which was adopted in 1992, about the use and analysis of DNA.
The nub of what the committee said was that storage times for DNA profiles should vary according to the seriousness of the case.
So, the government has a clear direction it can travel in, to meet the court's findings, though it is likely to take some months before ministers finalise their proposals.
The question is what impact will this have on fighting crime.
In its submission to the court - and in parliamentary answers and ministerial statements - the government cites data, suggesting that by September 2005, the national database held 181,000 DNA profiles from suspects who would have been entitled to have their records deleted, under a "no conviction, no DNA" rule.
It says that 8,251 of these individuals were subsequently linked with crime-scene stains, which involved 13,079 offences including 109 murders and 116 rapes.
DNA benefits
The court says the figures appear "impressive" - but on closer analysis it acknowledges, as the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and GeneWatch UK also have, that they are unconvincing.
The figures do not show if cases were solved entirely because DNA was retained from people who were not convicted or against whom charges were dropped. Other factors might have played a part.
The statistics also do not reveal when the DNA match was made.
The government, and police, have also given specific examples of crimes that were solved because of the power to take and store DNA.
But very few of these cases that I have seen involve the matching of a crime-scene sample with DNA from a suspect who has been through the legal process and cleared.
It is also worth remembering that the European court's ruling will not affect the police's powers to take DNA samples from people who are arrested, and to hold them for the purposes of an investigation.
However, it might well be that the ability of police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to clear up crimes is restricted by the court's ruling, and any subsequent changes the government introduces.
Certainly, hundreds of thousands of people who are already on the database, and have no criminal convictions, will be entitled to have their records removed.
But the impact on solving crimes might not be as great as ministers and police officers fear.

In my opinion I would rather see each and every person in my country in the DNA database then to have only the convicted criminals in there, I see DNA as "if you have nothing to hide, then just give a sample", that's my opinion and I know for a fact that millions of people won't agree with me on that, but it's my opinion.

About the DNA storage, not sure about the UK but wouldn't double jeopardy play a big role in the use of DNA? - in terms of evidence used by the prosecutor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker

In my opinion I would rather see each and every person in my country in the DNA database then to have only the convicted criminals in there, I see DNA as "if you have nothing to hide, then just give a sample", that's my opinion and I know for a fact that millions of people won't agree with me on that, but it's my opinion.

About the DNA storage, not sure about the UK but wouldn't double jeopardy play a big role in the use of DNA? - in terms of evidence used by the prosecutor.

---

DNA isn't a 100% science.

How DNA gets onto things can be varied, just because you have been to a crime scene doesn't mean you were involved.

I personally think DNA should stop being the I-WIN button of policing. I dread to think how many innocent people have ended up in jail because of it. Likewise I wonder how many people have gotten away with it because they didn't leave DNA behind.

Taking DNA from everyone would be a human rights violation. It's fair enough if the person has broken the law in the first place, but for law abiding citizens it is unlawful imo. I guess that's what this is about, holding DNA for citizens who have never done anything wrong.

I agree with Parker, it's stupid to only have the dna and shit for convicted criminals, what if someone commits a murder, goes on the loose, you catch a guy matching the description, but you never know if it's actually the murderer, or some guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

DNA isn't an exact science but it is a very effective when used as evidence in a case. As a Student Police Officer, I believe that everybody should have a DNA sample taken at birth - not just taking DNA from criminals. Apart from bleeding heart liberals, people would not object to this except criminals as this would crimpen there lifestyle.

Rob - DNA is not used to convict people on it's own. It has to be used in conjunction with other evidence, such as witness statements, treat prints, unsatisfactory alibi. I'm not saying innocent people do get convicted because of DNA misinformation but as it stands it is one of the best ways to solve a crime.

Quote:

---

retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful.

---

too fucking right. nice one, EU.

to all the people saying there should be a universal DNA database: have you already forgotten the millions and millions of peoples' details that this government has carelessly lost? and you shouldnt be asking yourself "if im not a criminal, what do i have to worry about?" you should be asking yourself "if im not a criminal, why should i be treated like one?"

edit: ECtHR != EU, my old A level politics teacher would be ashamed.

Put yourself in this scenario then, this is the way I look at it.

a) you walk home and police are at your home with the whole house taped off, you ask what is going on etc etc and you find out that your sister/mother/father etc was murdered, they find all sorts of DNA but there is no record in the database for the alleged criminal, the murder gets off scott-free because the police had no suspects or they had the wrong suspects.


b) you walk home and police are at your home with the whole house taped off, you ask what is going on etc etc and you find out that your sister/mother/father etc was murdered, they find all sorts of DNA and they find out that person X was at the scene of the crime, the police investigators then focus on person X and person X doesn't have an alibi, has a motive and so on, the police then find other evidence that convicts person X of the crime.

Which scenario would you rather have?

Prevention is always better then cure in terms of health, and the same can apply for criminals.

there is no prevention in either of scenarios, and the second is based on the assumption that only DNA can lead to a valid suspect. a universal DNA database is a fundamental breach of human rights, and a danger to society in the hands of a government that has a record of losing millions of citizens' data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theninjaway

I agree with Parker, it's stupid to only have the dna and shit for convicted criminals, what if someone commits a murder, goes on the loose, you catch a guy matching the description, but you never know if it's actually the murderer, or some guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

uhh then you take a DNA sample from him, and if it turns out he's innocent, you get rid of it. pretty simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vannaroth

there is no prevention in either of scenarios, and the second is based on the assumption that only DNA can lead to a valid suspect. a universal DNA database is a fundamental breach of human rights, and a danger to society in the hands of a government that has a record of losing millions of citizens' data.



uhh then you take a DNA sample from him, and if it turns out he's innocent, you get rid of it. pretty simple.

---

Preventing a criminal from getting away with the crime is what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vannaroth

there is no prevention in either of scenarios, and the second is based on the assumption that only DNA can lead to a valid suspect. a universal DNA database is a fundamental breach of human rights, and a danger to society in the hands of a government that has a record of losing millions of citizens' data.



uhh then you take a DNA sample from him, and if it turns out he's innocent, you get rid of it. pretty simple.

---

You either misunderstand the topic, or are very wrong. They weren't allowed to take any DNA sample, so yeah.

well you obviously didnt even read the topic. the problem here is that peoples' DNA remains on record even if theyre found innocent. the ECtHR has ruled that innocent peoples' DNA cannot be retained. A sample can still be taken as long as it is removed when the person is cleared.

And what if the innocent person commits a crime again? Then you have a mix up, and you have a person who matches the description but isn't the actuall person and you don't have the DNA sample from the "innocent" person anymore, so you can't verify it.

You get an arrest warrant that gives permission to get the DNA from the alleged offender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theninjaway

And what if the innocent person commits a crime again? Then you have a mix up, and you have a person who matches the description but isn't the actuall person and you don't have the DNA sample from the "innocent" person anymore, so you can't verify it.

---

ninja please run things through in your head before you post them. first of all, how can an innocent person commit a crime again? they wouldnt be innocent if that was the case. I dont see what youre not getting here. its real easy: crime is committed. police make a list of suspects. suspects have their DNA taken. criminal is found. innocent peoples' DNA data is removed from record. criminal's is kept. then wham bam thank you ma'am, crime is solved with no human rights violations.

it makes perfect sense to store the DNA to prevent crime, honestly if you have nothing to hide, why should it matter if the government has your DNA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clysse

it makes perfect sense to store the DNA to prevent crime, honestly if you have nothing to hide, why should it matter if the government has your DNA

---

but how will take the fking time, these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clysse

it makes perfect sense to store the DNA to prevent crime, honestly if you have nothing to hide, why should it matter if the government has your DNA

---

because a) its a human rights violation, b) it'd cost billions of pounds and be a complete waste because c) it wouldn't make us any safer because d) this government has a habit of carelessly losing important information, and finally e) not even the police want it.