Europe protects freedom of British

[ace00]

If your wife or mother were murdered, and the suspect were identified via DNA from the database but for an arrest rather then conviction would you be happy to see that man go free under human rights legislation?

If they only had DNA evidence the case would not stand. So you can't make that comparison.
I think that most serious criminals don't just materialise, so it is a good argument for having a DNA db of convicted serious criminals.

[BrilloPad]

I just hope now the Europe will sort out the UK on the bn66 retrospective taxation.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

If your wife or mother were[sic] murdered, and the suspect were[sic] identified via DNA from the database but for an arrest rather than conviction would you be happy to see that man go free under human rights legislation?

100% yes if that was the only evidence. DNA isn't foolproof and we've already had a case of wrongful arrest from it.

[expat]

100% yes if that was the only evidence. DNA isn't foolproof and we've already had a case of wrongful arrest from it.

With respect (no sarcasm) that is an interesting point but it is not the main point IMHO.

The main thing is the balance between increasing chance of catching criminals, and increasing imposition on innocent people. That's why I keep mentioning the Gestapo as a comparison. Some impositions on our freedom are usually judged to be worth it for the good they do, and some are not.

No-one is saying that a DNA database will not get some crooks caught. What we are saying is that having your DNA compulsorily on file for ever, when you have not been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime, is an imposition too far, even if some criminals will be caught by this.

If OTOH you argue that the good does outweight the evil here, let me ask why we don't just take DNA samples from the entire population? Do you think that would be going too far?

[SantaClaus]

Landmark victory for million DNA 'innocents'

The police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland face having to wipe the profiles of nearly one million innocent people from the DNA database after a landmark European ruling. .
Two men from Sheffield, south Yorkshire, who were previously cleared of criminal charges, have won a major victory after the European Court of Human Rights ruled keeping their DNA on the British police database breached their human rights...........................

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rt-ruling.html

I don't know whether to be happy (that the judgement was made) or sad that the only way to get the government to listen to the people is to sue them. And the human rights act too, oh the irony. And may I also say well done Europe

This is excellent news

Also good news that the European Court can make such judgements for people on the BN66 thread.

[Bagpuss]

With respect (no sarcasm) that is an interesting point but it is not the main point IMHO.

The main thing is the balance between increasing chance of catching criminals, and increasing imposition on innocent people. That's why I keep mentioning the Gestapo as a comparison. Some impositions on our freedom are usually judged to be worth it for the good they do, and some are not.

No-one is saying that a DNA database will not get some crooks caught. What we are saying is that having your DNA compulsorily on file for ever, when you have not been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime, is an imposition too far, even if some criminals will be caught by this.

If OTOH you argue that the good does outweight the evil here, let me ask why we don't just take DNA samples from the entire population? Do you think that would be going too far?

IMHO taking someones dna for a civil offence e.g. a motoring conviction should be outlawed, however if you are arrested for a criminal offence it should be a matter of course. After all they would have taken your fingerprints and other details and stored them. Add to that many serious sex offending criminals commit numerous petty offences for which they are not always convicted these people would be stopped sooner.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Just to be clear, I was answering the question about whether I'd be "happy" for the murderer of my sis to go free if the only evidence against them was DNA from an arrest where they were not convicted and my answer was yes.

DNA should be retained from convicted criminals only IMHO.

[Bagpuss]

Just to be clear, I was answering the question about whether I'd be "happy" for the murderer of my sis to go free if the only evidence against them was DNA from an arrest where they were not convicted and my answer was yes.

DNA should be taken (and retained) from convicted criminals only IMHO.

I didn't exactly say that, it wouldn't get to court if there were not some circumstancial evidence, but that would not be enough without the DNA. Therefore you knew the guy was there, you knew his DNA was found about your sisters person but you would be unhappy if he was convicted by DNA obtained under a breach of his human rights?

[M_B]

How would it be a breach of his human rights ? He's on trial for murder and as such his DNA can be analysed. The European ruling doesnt change that.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I didn't exactly say that, it wouldn't get to court if there were not some circumstancial evidence, but that would not be enough without the DNA. Therefore you knew the guy was there, you knew his DNA was found about your sisters person but you would be unhappy if he was convicted by DNA obtained under a breach of his human rights?

CORRECT