Should we, or should we not, have our DNA on a database if we are innocent of a crime?
Both arguments are convincingly compelling.
The pro DNA protagonists argue, that because of the database, crimes are now being solved that went undetected for years, and if you are innocent, well, why worry, only the guilty should be concerned? On the face of it, this argument is powerful.
If it means rapists are caught before they are able to commit other crimes, surly, that must be a good thing! What sane civilised person could argue against that? For a slight erosion of our civil liberties, if it was your mother, wife, daughter who was raped, and it could have been avoided if DNA was available the argument becomes stronger. It becomes personal to you, and it is then inside your front door, and it becomes even more difficult to argue against. This is what the consenters would place before you.
Now what would you say? The only answer will be - yes - yes, yes - with bells on. Are you convinced yet that everyone should give a DNA sample?
Let’s look at the other viewpoint. You are arrested, a DNA sample is taken, standard procedure, you are cautioned, charged, but later acquitted. You have been tried and found innocent by your peers. Do you have the right to ask the police to destroy your sample? It seems reasonable. Not many could argue against that. After all, you’ve done nothing wrong. Or a sample of DNA is taken from your baby and you have no right to object.
Of course, you want the right to say no, but you can’t refuse, if the police had their way they would wish to keep your DNA in perpetuity. In fact, many make this very argument, that there should be a national DNA database, and everyone should be on it. A swab taken at birth, and kept until death, and beyond, and the database checked whenever the police are able to take a sample from a crime scene.
That is, the police inform us, how many of the rapes and murders over the last few years have been solved. Cold case files are being opened, and to the police’s credit, quite a number have been solved. Notwithstanding, many miscarriages of Justices have become known, solely, I would add, due to DNA analysis. Where it is proven that the person convicted of the crime could not have possibly committed the offence they were incarcerated for, look at the high profile cases of recent origin in the US and the UK.
Both viewpoints are valid, the second more so than the first, that there should be a nationally held DNA data base, if it saves just one life or stops one woman from being raped, or proves the innocence of an individual wrongly convicted of a crime. Should we not run with it? If you are a law-abiding citizen, it will make not a bit of difference to you.
Or will it?
Frankly, I think not, it will mean nothing to you whether your DNA is on file or not on file.
"So, I am for it then," you might think.
Wrong!
I am all for protecting the public, and in a perfect world – yes - I would have no objection, even applaud it as a good thing. But we don’t; civil liberties are important. We cannot risk further erosion of our individual rights, each chip taken of the block, moves us closer towards the totalitarian state.
Indeed, a recent ruling from the Court of Human Rights have rejected the UK government’s stance against keeping the DNA of innocent people, stating the Scottish Parliament has got it about right.
Scotland keeps the DNA for three years and then destroys it, but why should this even be the case to keep an innocent person’s DNA for even one day? Remember, we are talking about innocent people, guilty of no crime. You or I could be stopped, taken to a Police Station, and a DNA sample taken for committing the most basic of offences, speeding for example.
And what does the UK government do? It tried to circumvent the European ruling, and states it proposes to keep the DNA on file for up to 12 years, 12 years, and for innocent people. What is happening here?
A person guilty of a crime needs to be caught and punished by society, there is no doubt about that. The law should apply equally to everyone, but please, let’s get some proportionality here. Good intention falls by the wayside when it comes to power, and politics. Individuals are prone to self-interest, and we need law with liberty to protect us again our politicians and ourselves.
As John Locke (1632-1704) stated:
“All men are liable to error; and most men are, in many points by passion or interest, under temptation to it.”
Ah! I hear you say, but he lived a few centuries ago, not relevant today. Totalitarianism is paved with good intentions I would reply. A law is brought in to protect, and immediately it is abused. Prove it you say!
Bins, dustbins, remember them! It’s still happening, Councils are using Terrorist Legislation to snoop, to convict people who place wrong recycling waste in waste-bins, and spy on people who have the audacity of putting their waste-bins out too early for collection, and yes, you guessed it. By using that piece of legislation, which was designed exclusively, so they lead us to believe, to protect us again terrorists. A fine shower of lies I must say.
Where is the proportionality there? There is none, none whatsoever, only puffed up minor bureaucrats, flexing muscles, and puffing out their chests in righteous indignation towards the rest of us.
Both arguments are convincingly compelling.
The pro DNA protagonists argue, that because of the database, crimes are now being solved that went undetected for years, and if you are innocent, well, why worry, only the guilty should be concerned? On the face of it, this argument is powerful.
If it means rapists are caught before they are able to commit other crimes, surly, that must be a good thing! What sane civilised person could argue against that? For a slight erosion of our civil liberties, if it was your mother, wife, daughter who was raped, and it could have been avoided if DNA was available the argument becomes stronger. It becomes personal to you, and it is then inside your front door, and it becomes even more difficult to argue against. This is what the consenters would place before you.
Now what would you say? The only answer will be - yes - yes, yes - with bells on. Are you convinced yet that everyone should give a DNA sample?
Let’s look at the other viewpoint. You are arrested, a DNA sample is taken, standard procedure, you are cautioned, charged, but later acquitted. You have been tried and found innocent by your peers. Do you have the right to ask the police to destroy your sample? It seems reasonable. Not many could argue against that. After all, you’ve done nothing wrong. Or a sample of DNA is taken from your baby and you have no right to object.
Of course, you want the right to say no, but you can’t refuse, if the police had their way they would wish to keep your DNA in perpetuity. In fact, many make this very argument, that there should be a national DNA database, and everyone should be on it. A swab taken at birth, and kept until death, and beyond, and the database checked whenever the police are able to take a sample from a crime scene.
That is, the police inform us, how many of the rapes and murders over the last few years have been solved. Cold case files are being opened, and to the police’s credit, quite a number have been solved. Notwithstanding, many miscarriages of Justices have become known, solely, I would add, due to DNA analysis. Where it is proven that the person convicted of the crime could not have possibly committed the offence they were incarcerated for, look at the high profile cases of recent origin in the US and the UK.
Both viewpoints are valid, the second more so than the first, that there should be a nationally held DNA data base, if it saves just one life or stops one woman from being raped, or proves the innocence of an individual wrongly convicted of a crime. Should we not run with it? If you are a law-abiding citizen, it will make not a bit of difference to you.
Or will it?
Frankly, I think not, it will mean nothing to you whether your DNA is on file or not on file.
"So, I am for it then," you might think.
Wrong!
I am all for protecting the public, and in a perfect world – yes - I would have no objection, even applaud it as a good thing. But we don’t; civil liberties are important. We cannot risk further erosion of our individual rights, each chip taken of the block, moves us closer towards the totalitarian state.
Indeed, a recent ruling from the Court of Human Rights have rejected the UK government’s stance against keeping the DNA of innocent people, stating the Scottish Parliament has got it about right.
Scotland keeps the DNA for three years and then destroys it, but why should this even be the case to keep an innocent person’s DNA for even one day? Remember, we are talking about innocent people, guilty of no crime. You or I could be stopped, taken to a Police Station, and a DNA sample taken for committing the most basic of offences, speeding for example.
And what does the UK government do? It tried to circumvent the European ruling, and states it proposes to keep the DNA on file for up to 12 years, 12 years, and for innocent people. What is happening here?
A person guilty of a crime needs to be caught and punished by society, there is no doubt about that. The law should apply equally to everyone, but please, let’s get some proportionality here. Good intention falls by the wayside when it comes to power, and politics. Individuals are prone to self-interest, and we need law with liberty to protect us again our politicians and ourselves.
As John Locke (1632-1704) stated:
“All men are liable to error; and most men are, in many points by passion or interest, under temptation to it.”
Ah! I hear you say, but he lived a few centuries ago, not relevant today. Totalitarianism is paved with good intentions I would reply. A law is brought in to protect, and immediately it is abused. Prove it you say!
Bins, dustbins, remember them! It’s still happening, Councils are using Terrorist Legislation to snoop, to convict people who place wrong recycling waste in waste-bins, and spy on people who have the audacity of putting their waste-bins out too early for collection, and yes, you guessed it. By using that piece of legislation, which was designed exclusively, so they lead us to believe, to protect us again terrorists. A fine shower of lies I must say.
Where is the proportionality there? There is none, none whatsoever, only puffed up minor bureaucrats, flexing muscles, and puffing out their chests in righteous indignation towards the rest of us.
"Look, look at me, I am here, I can, I will, I am in charge."
with no sense of abuse against our liberties.
Again, another example of self-interest, MP expenses. Locke’s quote is as relevant today as it was then. I could go further, but by now, you get the picture. So please, let your voice be heard, stand up, shout if need be, but keep the power of the state in check. It’s not a perfect answer, but we’re not in a perfect world, but it’s better than the alternative.
It takes only a few psychotic people to tread on the many, and for the majority to do nothing. So don’t give individual power away, bite back. Say enough is enough, the power of the state encroaches on our lives already far too much, please, don’t give it more power by default. We can change decisions; Joanna Lumley had proved that with the Ghurkhas.
Let me have your view on this important subject, which in some way affects every last one of us.
Again, another example of self-interest, MP expenses. Locke’s quote is as relevant today as it was then. I could go further, but by now, you get the picture. So please, let your voice be heard, stand up, shout if need be, but keep the power of the state in check. It’s not a perfect answer, but we’re not in a perfect world, but it’s better than the alternative.
It takes only a few psychotic people to tread on the many, and for the majority to do nothing. So don’t give individual power away, bite back. Say enough is enough, the power of the state encroaches on our lives already far too much, please, don’t give it more power by default. We can change decisions; Joanna Lumley had proved that with the Ghurkhas.
Let me have your view on this important subject, which in some way affects every last one of us.
I have sympathy with your view and on some gut level, to agree with it. Gut level it is however for I strongly suspect that ones current 'conviction' (that's yours and mine Roy) might quickly evaporate if it were a member of our family that finally received justice as a result of DNA evidence, however that DNA sample was obtained.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Anonymous, but I'm not talking about it at a micro level, even though, family is at that level, but the overall picture, macro, yes, I would want the person caught, anyone would.
ReplyDeleteI a perfect world, giving DNA should not be a problem, but we cannot trust our politicians. They make laws, and immediatley they are abused. Perhaps, it's the politicians we should change, and make them far more accountable to the people who elect them!
I have the solution. Let's make the politicians only give the DNA. That way when they 'fiddle' their expenses (ooops - forgot they don't break the rules ) at least we will have a record of who they are.
ReplyDelete