I finally managed to watch Monday's BBC Panorama this afternoon regarding the DNA debates and the pros and cons of having a national DNA database.
I was extremely pleased to hear of the success of the two murder cases which because of DNA matches the murderer was caught.
In 1995 18-year-old Louise Smith, went missing after visiting a nightclub with friends. Seven weeks later her body was found hidden in a local quarry. She had been raped and murdered.
The police found the murderer's DNA at the scene. They then took samples of DNA from thousands of local men to find a DNA match, and the killer.
It took 14 months to find him, and he was someone with a completely clean record.
It was this case that led to a change in the law in England and Wales so that samples of the innocent could be kept, moving a step closer to a universal database.
The police dealing with the murder case said to Louise Smith's parents Gill and Rob Smith, that if there would have been a National DNA Database the killer would have been identified within 14 days as opposed to 14 months.
Kim Newson's killer was identified through DNA being obtained as the result of a previous burglary. During a burglary in a bar in Lincoln the thief took bottles of drink and in an alley around the corner of the bar he sorted through what was needed. However, he pulled his glove off using his mouth and saliva on that glove gave the forensic scientists the sample they needed. It matched a sample of DNA taken from a burglary 7 years earlier. It led the police to Steven Charles Hughes and a search of his flat which was below Kim Newson's uncovered a much more serious crime. They found a copy of a birth cerificate of Kim Newson in Hughes' jacked pocket and it had her blood and a foot print in the blood on it. After taking a foot print sample of Hughes it matched. Hughes was eventually charged and then convicted of the murder of Kim Newson.
A specially commissioned opinion poll for Panorama has revealed that two thirds of people would be in favour of a national DNA database.
Sixty-six percent of those questioned by ICM said they would approve of a new law requiring all adults to give a sample of their DNA to help with the prevention and detection of crime.
There are currently over four million DNA profiles on the database and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those who are arrested for a recordable offence - anything from drink driving to murder - have to give their DNA sample for the database. Even if they are innocent their DNA will still be kept.
However of those questioned for the ICM poll for Panorama 64% were against the idea of taking samples from newborn babies.
The success of DNA in solving crimes has been massive! Clear ups in burglary, cold cases with the use of DNA have seen the offenders locked up but senior forensic scientist Professor Allan Jamieson who is Director of The Forensic Institute, based in Glasgow warns that too much trust is already placed in DNA results.
He says: "People put too much faith in DNA. They're giving it an infallibility which it does not have."
He explains that finding DNA traces does not always tell you what you think it does.
"We've shaken hands. My DNA will be on your hand. You may touch something outside of this room that I have never touched, and therefore my DNA will be somewhere where I have never been," he adds.
There has been a documented case of mistaken identity with DNA. In Swindon a man with Parkinson's Disease was arrested, and charged with a burglary in Bolton. He was frail and had never been there. But his DNA sample - it is claimed - matched one taken from the crime scene.
Eventually the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) admitted that he could not have done it.
In my personal opinion I have no issues with giving a DNA sample should it be made mandatory. I have no reservations in giving a sample should a voluntary request be made in the event of an incident. I have nothing to hide! I believe that you should be worried if you do have something to hide.
Civil Liberty groups believe that it is wrong to hold information about parts of you being held on a database but for this doubt I ask just one question...
Suppose your daughter, son, wife, husband, partner was murdered....wouldn't you want the police to use everything in their power to find the person responsible?
2 comments:
I have always agreed with a national DNA database. Anyone who doesn't makes me believe they have something to hide and usually use the "but it is infringing on my personal space and privacy" bullshit.
I think it would be a good idea if the mediacl profession were by law required to take a DNA profile from any blood tests taken and added them to the database, it would help prevent those with clean records slip through the net or go so long without being caught on such cases as Louise Smith (providing he was ill that is).
I do have to say though that it doesn't take such force to take a swab from the mouth because the lining is so delicate so please guys and gals when you take a sample be gentle...I had cuts down the inside of my mouth for weeks! poor rookie shat himself when he saw them lol
One point nobody raises about our "surveillance society"... all this databasing and recording and watching and scrutinizing of our population is all well and good in times of peace and under a benign British government. Isn't Britain, after all the home of democracy and free speech?
Imagine just for a moment if this island of ours should become invaded by an enemy power, or if a totalitarian government should gain get in.
EVERYTHING those powers require to keep a population subjugated has ALREADY been done in the name of "crime fighting" and "national security"... don't you see?
Sometimes being anonymous is a good thing, not because it's a licence to go out and commit crimes, but because NOT being anonymous gives those with ill-motives TOO MUCH POWER OVER YOU.
Post a Comment