Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So they announce they are going to DNA test every man in Bristol. That'll work if the killer was female then. If the killer's male he'll think, hmm... right I'll get the hell out of Bristol then. Sorted. Ridiculous idea that would only happen if the police wanted to look they were actually doing something to catch the killer but would actually achieve nothing at all.
Prometheus
Stupid idea. How do they know every single male in Bristol or who was in Bristol that day? If everyone's DNA was on a database as a compulsory order for living in the UK then crimes like this might not happen. That may be a stupid idea too, but would make people think twice. (Or 3 times. Or ensure they do not leave any DNA at the scene of the crime of course)
Karma_
QUOTE KARMA:

Stupid idea. How do they know every single male in Bristol or who was in Bristol that day? If everyone's DNA was on a database as a compulsory order for living in the UK then crimes like this might not happen. That may be a stupid idea too, but would make people think twice. (Or 3 times. Or ensure they do not leave any DNA at the scene of the crime of course)

Good post Karma.  I found this question hard to answer, although I was leaning towards thinking maybe it would be a good idea, but of course, as you said, theres no guarantee that the person who did it even lives in that area.  Its a tricky one I think.  Some think that compulsory DNA testing is a violation of one's human rights, but so is being murdered.    And if taking everyone's DNA and keeping it on a database would curb crime and murder, would that be a bad thing?
FM
I personally don't think it'd be a bad thing. It'd only be bad if you were in the mindset of committing crimes so severe that testing one's DNA would bring a guilty verdict. And the only crimes I can think of that would require such testing would be murder and rape. (Of course there are sometimes mitigating circumstances within rape where the victim might be crying wolf but I'm talking about cases that can be cast iron proven beyond any reasonable doubt). Ah bugger I know what I'm trying to say but don't know if it's coming out right!
Karma_
I know what you're trying to say hun.    And I do understand where you're coming from, and youre making sense don't worry.  It could be tricky when it comes to rape, as the man would have his DNA on the woman, but she 'could' have consented and it may not have been rape...Like we said its a tricky one isnt it?
FM
From the link Brisket posted 
"Why does [the DNA profile] need to be held on file? That shouldn't be the case unless you've been convicted" 
Dr Helen Wallace, Genewatch

How does such a stupid woman ever get to be a doctor? Instead of looking for a needle in a haystack like they currently are in the Jo Yeates case if everyone's DNA is on file they have an instant match straight away. Like Karma said the only people who would object to having DNA on file are the people who intend to commit such crimes. 
Prometheus
QUOTE PROMETHESUS:
if everyone's DNA is on file they have an instant match straight away.

That is one of the things that would be good about having itLike karma said earlier, it may well deter people from committing crimes if they knew their DNA was on a database.  Its just the logistics of it and trying to keep it all under control that would be a nightmare.
FM
If the police want to test the DNA of every man in Bristol, they must already have a sample of DNA for comparison.  The DNA sample would tell if it came from a man or woman.

The Bristol area has over 1 million people.  There is no way that they would be able to conduct DNA tests on even 1/4 of that people.  I magaine this announcement is a ruse to flush out a suspect.
Suzi-Q
So let's infringe the human rights of every innocent person in the area under the assumption that it will catch this killer.
Just don't agree. I don't intend to commit a crime and yet I would refuse to have my DNA stored by the State. Why? Well it would be the State storing it not the present day Govt, there is no telling who would have access to it in the future and what technology could do in the future. It's entirely possible that scientists could replicate DNA to frame innocent people at the behest of the State
FM
Reference:
So let's infringe the human rights of every innocent person in the area under the assumption that it will catch this killer. Just don't agree. I don't intend to commit a crime and yet I would refuse to have my DNA stored by the State. Why? Well it would be the State storing it not the present day Govt, there is no telling who would have access to it in the future and what technology could do in the future. It's entirely possible that scientists could replicate DNA to frame innocent people at the behest of the State
I'm with you Veggie 
FM
Continuing from what Veggie said but yet at a slight tangent.........
Part of our daily cycle ride takes place over a rather isolated farm track. In and amongst the Blue Peter (an empty plastic drinks bottle, some foil, and make sure a grown up knows that you are using a sharp implement) crack pipes, and gentlemen's art magazines, one can be sure to find  discarded condoms, lying in the road and draped across the hedges. Assuming that they contain sources of DNA on the inside and outside, just think of the pranks and japes one could engineer.
I should imagine.
Garage Joe
The police haven't even suggested this yet, have they?

I heard that they were taking DNA from her Facebook friends, at the moment.

Although, as stonks said, this has been done before and it's usually voluntary, from what I recall. There was a case in Bristol, and one of the suspects scarpered to Australia, rather than give his DNA. They followed him there, tested him, and found a match.
Blizz'ard

DNA matching is not as straightforward as many people seem to think.
It is not 100% accurate, and mistakes can be made.
I have read a number of articles which go into the pros and cons - and there are cons.
I, for one, would not like to feel I was owned by the state.
I don't want an ID card, and I don't want my DNA saved.
I still like the idea of innocent until proved guilty as the best way.
My liberties are vital to me.

 

brisket
Reference:
DNA matching is not as straightforward as many people seem to think. It is not 100% accurate, and mistakes can be made.

isn't that why DNA evidence alone is not enough for a conviction?

sounds like they are testing close circles and seems natural to widen them further if they have no joy?  am pretty sure the cost of testing every male is prohibitive and therefore not the first port of call..

as for having my DNA on record.. I really wouldn't care to be honest.. am pretty sure in this day and age they have loads of info about us available to them anyway and a few skins cells added to it isn't going to make any difference..   lets face it if they want to fit you up for something they will find a way, DNA on record or not..
Mount Olympus *Olly*

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×