|
steeveg
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2008, 10:52:20 AM » |
|
i agree there should be a dna datbase,i dont think it affects civil liberty, when the ripper was running loose a lot of woman where so scared of being attacked it affected there life style, stopping then from leading a full life, the only concern i have is the convictions proven from samples are safe, i believe it would stop a lot of first time sex attacks, it certainly would stop serial sex killers, you will never stop a nutter who cant help himself from committing the first attack but you will stop him being a serial attacker, it would also save the country a fortune in police work leaving more police to concentrate on other crime, we have to ask whats more important stopping horrendous crimes on woman and children or being upset .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
madasahatstand
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2008, 11:09:16 AM » |
|
If you think DNA sampling will stop serial killers then you are kidding yourself on. I agree we need to protect people from horendous attacks, Im just not sure DNA sampling society as a whole will stop that. The criminals are always one step ahead of the authorities....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Patience is a virtue.  |
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2008, 11:23:14 AM » |
|
Luckily in Scots law you must have corroboration to prove guilt, so conviction on dna evidence alone can't happen. I don't think this is the case in England so until you change your law this should be opposed.
Time and time again the authorities take short cuts to gain convictions and the fact that dna evidence will be presented in court as ironclad proof of guilt to a probably disinterested jury is likely to lead to miscarraiges of justice.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
steeveg
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2008, 11:31:43 AM » |
|
the killers are psycho or evil, not experts on committing the perfect crime, if they can be identified from there dna at the scene it must help in catching these people, there was a programme on telly a few months back saying, a person only has to talk for 30secs in a room and he can be identified from his dna ,if dna tests are so sensitive the attackers must leave some dna behind as you would not even know other techniques they have for getting samples of dna from a crime scene
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
boldie
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2008, 12:39:56 PM » |
|
I disagree on soo many levels with this idea.
Say we have the DNA database..that doesn't mean you'll stop the next rape or murder...know what would make it easier? Put a chip in everybody so that the govt always knows where you are. Combine this with DNA and they can immediatly go and arrest a suspect as they won't have to go looking for them.
After all, if you have nothing to hide why would you not want that chip implanted?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2008, 12:42:27 PM » |
|
Haven't we had this debate before when a lot of blonde members thought it was a great idea that everybodies DNA should be taken at birth. Personally I do not share many peoples blanket faith in the Government and police authorities ability to administer such a database or trust them to use it for the sole purpose of using it to solve serious crime. The government and police have and history of misusing information for alternative purposes other than those that they campaigned on and I for one see no reason why I should give them my DNA when I am innocent. Civil liberty is a wonderful thing and I would hate to see our fundamental social structure change. I enjoy the system of innocent until proven guilty rather than that of living in a totalitarian run state where by we are all treated with the suspicion of guilt. Hasn't the Government's incompetence re: losing individuals personal information not scared people enough. What about the guilty convictions which have been reached due to an over reliance of DNA evidence, evidence which at a later date was proved wrong. And what about cross contamenation ?. These reasons alone are enough for me to not share many blonde's blanket faith in a national DNA database. I also recall a documentary in which it was suggested that such a large database could actual hinder the solving of crimes as already happens in many cases where the police receive so much information that it fails to process it correctly. For those that do believe in a DNA database why don't you volunteer to be tagged 24/7 so your every movement can be recorded. After all you have nothing to hide.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2008, 12:56:51 PM » |
|
in the ipswich case it would of stop some of the deaths
I really doubt it would have stopped some of the deaths. I live in Ipswich and having known one of the girls from my college days I have followed this case as it had such an impact on our sleepy suffolk town. Firstly the first two bodies were found some time after there death and they had been disposed of in water. As a result there was no Steve Wright DNA on the first body discovered, that of Gemma Adams, and whilst there was some found on Tania Nichols there was probably other individuals DNA also on her body. Also the timeline was such that the last three murders were so soon after Tania's body was found that that I doubt that they would have had enough evidence to either arrest or even have Steve Wright as a prime suspect. Much of the evidence that was collected that went to convict Steve Wright was gathered from the last three bodies which were done in such a short period of time. It's the perception that DNA is the answer and the belief well if you have nothing to hide that see's people cry out for such a database without people actually being aware of all the facts. I am in support of a DNA database be held for those who have been found guilty of previous crimes but I do not see why the innocent should also have to give they DNA. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 23, 2008, 01:00:24 PM by thediceman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2008, 01:04:45 PM » |
|
Anyone arrested has to give a sample these days,.
And the police have also been known to keep the DNA of school children after they have gone into schools to do police demonstrations. And no they didn't ask them for their constent to keep the information. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
action man
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2008, 01:22:55 PM » |
|
1984
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cia260895
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2008, 01:31:29 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cia260895
|
|
« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2008, 01:39:50 PM » |
|
DNA database.ID cards chips implanted cctv   ffs even oyster cards now track where u go Big Brother is watching you well Big brother GFY |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ACE2M
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2008, 02:10:29 PM » |
|
i've always maintained that i would go to prison rather than accept an id card or being forced on to a dna database, starting to worry that it might come to that soon.
How can you be so eager to give up your liberty?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Royal Flush
|
|
« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2008, 03:23:08 PM » |
|
I am confused how is giving up DNA affecting your liberty?
What is the difference with that and giving the DVLA your home address?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
[19:44:40] Oracle: WE'RE ALL GOING ON A SPANISH HOLIDAY! TRIGGS STABLES SHIT!
|
|
|
|
doubleup
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2008, 03:28:02 PM » |
|
I am confused how is giving up DNA affecting your liberty?
What is the difference with that and giving the DVLA your home address?
You aren't serious surely. You do know what dna is? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 23, 2008, 03:29:45 PM by doubleup »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thediceman
|
|
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2008, 04:05:54 PM » |
|
I am confused how is giving up DNA affecting your liberty?
What is the difference with that and giving the DVLA your home address?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Author