Police to trawl for DNA of serious offenders

Police to trawl for DNA of serious offenders

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3795587/Police-to-trawl-for-DNA-of-serious-offenders.html]www.telegraph.co.uk[/ur l]

Police are to trawl the country taking the DNA of convicted serious offenders who are not on the national database.

The move will start with murderers and rapists in prison but Home Secretary Jacqui Smith disclosed that she is looking at extending police powers for those in the community as well.

It is aimed at capturing those who were convicted of serious offences before the database was set up in 1995 and will extend to those convicted overseas.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 16/12/08 by Rapacity]

To be fair, the article does continue with:

But the expansion of DNA taking came as Ms Smith signalled hundreds of thousands of other profiles are likely to be removed following a European ruling over the retention of DNA of innocent people.

She is expected to set a time limit on how long profiles of those who were never charged or acquitted can be retained - similar to other countries - which could affect up to 1.7 million DNA and fingerprint details currently on police databases.

She also announced a ban on keeping the DNA of children aged under 10 and profiles of juveniles aged under 18 may be wiped when the youngsters reach adulthood.

And so, it begins.

I'd say, this is a logical step to take, why not collect for storage the DNA of all serious offenders, past and present? Except, I know human nature. Once those serious offenders have had their DNA collected and added to the current database the gov will have several million people documented by DNA:

There are an estimated 4.4 million profiles on the system, and around 850,000 are people who were never charged, acquitted or had the case dropped. A similar number of people's fingerprints are also on the fingerprint database, which was equally affected by the ruling."

With so many convicted offenders documented (millions even with the exclusion of samples from innocent and non-convicted people), there will be many people in the database who will provide no objection to the database being extended to include everybody else.

It might be re-branded as the National Identity Register as a means of flouting the recent EU Court ruling that innocent people's details should be removed from the police database, but it will still be the same thing: a database of the most personal thing a person can have - DNA. It belongs to the individual that it makes. No other should have a sample of it that's sufficient enough to pry into those little secrets only a person and his DNA should know.

All quotes came from here

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/3795587/Police-to-trawl-for-DNA-of-serious-offenders.html]www.telegraph.co.uk[/ur l]
(visit the link for the full news article)

I use to think DNA was the coolest thing in the world until it started getting abused. Now you have insurance companies using it improperly and most importantly the police who are intent on capturing everybody's DNA. Right now there is still resistance from allowing the police to get the DNA of innocent people. Is really fair for them to keep your DNA in a database knowing that you were never charged with a crime? I believe it is not fair. Ultimately people will give in. I am sure that here in the US they will try to link it in with the Real ID. I can see it now, if you want any federal document you will have to give up your DNA. This includes any type of check that the government owes you. People would be lining up by the thousands to make sure they got their money, privacy or no privacy. Pretty sad that we give up so easily without a fight.

A DNA database of serious offenders isn't necessarily a bad thing. However we want to perceive it, it is the future of crime scene investigations.

As for documenting all of our DNA that is a misconception. Fingerprints for identification have been used since ancient civilization - and they do not have my fingerprints and potentially not yours either. Only convicted criminals have their fingerprints in the criminal database.

This woman Jacqui Smith is an irrational illogical psychopath.
And more than likely works directly for David Rockefeller and the other psychopaths.
If someone doesn't stop her, you will end up having people in a DNA database for jaywalking.
And having there internet monitored in real time, and any picture you look at any click you make or sound you hear, you will have to pay.

[edit on 16-12-2008 by habeas corpuss]

reply to post by habeas corpuss


Now, now, be careful - she might have her personal guard come take you away for questioning, logging and tagging for talking about her like that.

You summed her up extremely well though. She's got a bee in her bonnet about datacapturing and quantizing everyone. Have to wonder whether she's autistic or a sufferer of Asperger's Syndrome. And, what's her solution going to be for the final items she can't add to her narrowly defined categories of criminal and potential criminal.

[edit on 16/12/08 by Rapacity]

Originally posted by Yoda411
A DNA database of serious offenders isn't necessarily a bad thing. However we want to perceive it, it is the future of crime scene investigations.

I don't think many will deny that. We have to be very worried, though, when a gov is so keen to log everybody and issue ID cards to everybody (including visitors from other countries); coupled with the new work-for-your-benefits plan (in principle, I agree with that) which will create nothing less than a government workforce, I feel that we are being molded into a communist society. I'm not sure how strict it is going to be but by this gov's activities (both during Tony Blair's and Gordon Brown's reigns), I expect things to be chillingly slavelike.

And let's not forget the part nationalization of banks i.e the gov (not the taxpayer) owns a lot of people by virtue of the debts the gov's banks manage.

[edit on 16/12/08 by Rapacity]