[Newsbot]

Title: UK Cops Arrest People Just for DNA
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: N_Fiddledog
Date: 2009-11-24 15:08:49

[GreenTiger]

It's always a question whether the added security it worth a person right of prinacy of their DNA.

[DrCaleb]

And this people, is why we don't let law enforcement have the ability to 'randomly' give breathalysers.

[Brenda]

I think everyones DNA should just be stored the minute they are born. Problem solved

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Oh crap, I better quit going to Scotland then. I always have DNA on me and I don't need to get busted for it.

[EyeBrock]

The body who are commenting on the negatives of this have an anti-DNA agenda. Fingerprints are taken at the same time as DNA so why are they not saying the same about prints?

Also, to get DNA taken you have to have committed a criminal offence.

The UK cops have to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe that a person has committed an offence in order to take prints and DNA. Nothing different from 'reasonable grounds' in Canada, Australia and other countries with a legal system based on English Common-law.

If they make an unlawful arrest they get sued.

The big question here is why are so many black Britons committing criminal offences? This stuff is fodder for the BNP.


Lawyers don’t like DNA as it’s incontrovertible evidence that their client was at a crime scene.
It cannot be watered down to provide a court with ‘reasonable doubt’. It is the best evidence the police can get.

The only people who need fear DNA are those committing offences and lawyers fearing a decreased income.

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock wrote:

The body who are commenting on the negatives of this have an anti-DNA agenda. Fingerprints are taken at the same time as DNA so why are they not saying the same about prints?

Also, to get DNA taken you have to have committed a criminal offence.

In Canada, yes. Your DNA is only taken after a conviction for certain offences. Your fingerprints, after a criminal charge has been laid. But as the article states, their DNA can be taken in the UK just for detainment - they don't even have to be arrested!

And, being pro-privacy is not an "anti-DNA agenda". I don't supply my email, phone # or SIN# when asked for them either. I'm certainly not giving anyone a cheek swab.

EyeBrock wrote:

It cannot be watered down to provide a court with ‘reasonable doubt’. It is the best evidence the police can get.

The only people who need fear DNA are those committing offences and lawyers fearing a decreased income.

And anyone who has seen how a government can collect information for one purpose, and arbitrarily decide to use it for something else entirely. The DNA data in the UK is supposed to be time-limited, unless you are charged with terrorism. I believe the term here is 'fishing expedition'.

[Choban]

EyeBrock wrote:

The body who are commenting on the negatives of this have an anti-DNA agenda. Fingerprints are taken at the same time as DNA so why are they not saying the same about prints?

Also, to get DNA taken you have to have committed a criminal offence.

The UK cops have to have 'reasonable grounds' to believe that a person has committed an offence in order to take prints and DNA. Nothing different from 'reasonable grounds' in Canada, Australia and other countries with a legal system based on English Common-law.

If they make an unlawful arrest they get sued.

The big question here is why are so many black Britons committing criminal offences? This stuff is fodder for the BNP.


Lawyers don’t like DNA as it’s incontrovertible evidence that their client was at a crime scene.
It cannot be watered down to provide a court with ‘reasonable doubt’. It is the best evidence the police can get.

The only people who need fear DNA are those committing offences and lawyers fearing a decreased income.

Well said Brock, but I do think that there should be an outline of who they are allowed to get DNA from, some guy lifts a loaf of bread because him and his kids are hungry doesn't warrant such treatment, stick to those arrested for violent or sexual crimes.

I think most of those opposed are more worried about the possable increase in these tacticts to the point where they would want your DNA for something as minor as say jaywalking, and clearly thats over the top, but more power granted and ignored by the public the more chance there is that said power will be abused or increased until we are under scrutiny for all of our daily actions weather illegal or not.

Plus there is the obvious racial profiling of Blacks, what's next do they want all of us of Irish decent on their database incase of ties to the IRA, or how about every muslim ect...

Having said that I think too that alot of the nay sayers are just opposed to the police/authorities having any more power over them as principal rather than because they intend to break the law, and some will see it as a means to control them in a round about way.

[EyeBrock]

DrCaleb wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

The body who are commenting on the negatives of this have an anti-DNA agenda. Fingerprints are taken at the same time as DNA so why are they not saying the same about prints?

Also, to get DNA taken you have to have committed a criminal offence.

In Canada, yes. Your DNA is only taken after a conviction for certain offences. Your fingerprints, after a criminal charge has been laid. But as the article states, their DNA can be taken in the UK just for detainment - they don't even have to be arrested!

And, being pro-privacy is not an "anti-DNA agenda". I don't supply my email, phone # or SIN# when asked for them either. I'm certainly not giving anyone a cheek swab.

EyeBrock wrote:

It cannot be watered down to provide a court with ‘reasonable doubt’. It is the best evidence the police can get.

The only people who need fear DNA are those committing offences and lawyers fearing a decreased income.

And anyone who has seen how a government can collect information for one purpose, and arbitrarily decide to use it for something else entirely. The DNA data in the UK is supposed to be time-limited, unless you are charged with terrorism. I believe the term here is 'fishing expedition'.

The article is wrong. You have to have been arrested and charged before DNA can be taken. I was a cop in the UK.

And it has to be a more serious offence, you can't take DNA for summary offences or traffic offences.

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock wrote:

The article is wrong. You have to have been arrested and charged before DNA can be taken. I was a cop in the UK.

And it has to be a more serious offence, you can't take DNA for summary offences or traffic offences.

Rules change EB, people do funny things when bombs start going off around them. It's not the only article I've seen on this subject. eg:

Quote:

The retired police superintendent, who is quoted but not named in a HGC report entitled Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?, wrote to the advisory body expressing concerns that the way in which people were arrested appeared to have changed.

He wrote: "It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so.

"It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained: samples can be obtained after arrest but not if there is a report for summons.

"It matters not, of course, whether the arrest leads to no action, a caution or a charge, because the DNA is kept on the database anyway."
.
.
.

Currently everyone arrested for an offence that could lead to a criminal record has their DNA taken for the database, which is the largest of its kind in the world with five million samples.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8375567.stm

[EyeBrock]

Again, this article is mis-leading.

There are some summary offences that have a power of arrest if 'found committing', however because they are summary offences there is no power to take prints or DNA.

In the UK "breach-of-the-peace" is still widely used to arrest people in public order situations, but it is an offence against common law and is not codified as a criminal offence.
There is no power to take prints, photo or DNA with BOP but there is a power of arrest.

[DrCaleb]

EyeBrock wrote:

Again, this article is mis-leading.

There are some summary offences that have a power of arrest if 'found committing', however because they are summary offences there is no power to take prints or DNA.

In the UK "breach-of-the-peace" is still widely used to arrest people in public order situations, but it is an offence against common law and is not codified as a criminal offence.
There is no power to take prints, photo or DNA with BOP but there is a power of arrest.

You are probably correct. What I know about the differences between Canadian and UK law comes out of articles like this. I'm far more apt to believe a disinterested 3rd party than the sensationalized media.

Thanks for the clarification.

[EyeBrock]

No probs.

There are privacy issues arising from DNA but as long as there are strong controls in place and arms-length oversight of the police and crowns by independent bodies, preferably parliament, DNA is a definitive and credible method of proving guilt.

I agree with you that it needs strong oversight and we should not let usage creep happen. There are many times in Canada that DNA has been used to assist the wrongly convicted. My view is that all people charged with an indictable offence in Canada should have DNA taken along with fingerprints and photograph. If there is no finding of guilt all these items should be destroyed, if the accused is found guilty the DNA should remain on file until a pardon has been gained.

As it is currently, only a very small amount of convicted offenders are forced to provide DNA and Canadian lawyers are the main driving force in keeping it this way.

Such an easily available source of definitive evidence in more widespread use would convict the guilty much more efficiently and ensure that fewer wrongfully convicted people rot in jail.