Those crazy activist judges

[English assassin]

I know I am only voicing a commonly held sentiment, when I say, thank god for lawyers.

To summarise: In the UK, if you come to the attention of the police in any way (being arrested, looking a bit dodgy, that sort of thing) they can take your DNA to run against unsolved crimes. Not, BTW, the crime they "think" you might have done. Any old crime they happen to have on file.

Bad enough. (Oh, wait, you don't have a problem with that. Are you SURE you have never left DNA at a crime scene? Never been in a shop that got done over two days later, for example?) But there's more. Even if they get no matches, and even if they don't even CHARGE you with anything, they can keep your DNA on file. For ever.

Now, obviously, only an authoritarian imbecile with the moral sense of a fascist could think that was a good idea. Oh, look, here comes the Labour government.


LABOUR MPs were accused of “Orwellian” tactics last night after voting to make it all-but impossible for innocent people to remove their DNA from the national database.

Opposition parties reacted with fury after the Government overturned a Lords amendment that would have forced the Home Office to issue specific guidelines to help the innocent strip out their profiles.
Two weeks ago, the House of Lords backed a Conservative amendment calling for the Counter-Terrorism Bill to be redrafted to include specific guidelines on DNA removal.


http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/11/20/fury-at-labour-mps-orwellian-tactics-over-dna-database-vote-64375-22299620/


Yeah, yeah, I hear you. "Look EA, you can trust the police. They would never try to extend this scheme, would they? There's no slippery slope here"



Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/16/youthjustice.children

But, Hurrah: lawyers to the rescue:


Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.

The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.

The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" by the European Court of Human Rights' decision.

The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm

This was a complete no brainer to anyone who has the slighest idea about human rights law, so it is only to be expected that the government and home office are both surprised and disappointed at the ruling. All I can say is thank god these issues are in the hands of unelected and unaccountable judges, and not politicians, who clearly cannot be trusted.

[Vladimir]

Yes, I remember hearing about this before. My question: Is other information (e.g. name, birthdate, fingerprints) handled in the same way as DNA. DNA itself is only information. If it’s being handled in the same way as other information there should be no legal problem.

The stigma against it seems like an emotional reaction.

[rory_20_uk]

So, police get some DNA and run it through a database of DNA from semen samples from Rape victims or blood at site of murder / burglary.

It could have a useful application if cused correctly with people with ability and understanding. Sadly, it would be in the hands of the police.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Ah, news from England, that reminds me, I have to feed the cat

[English assassin]

So, police get some DNA and run it through a database of DNA from semen samples from Rape victims or blood at site of murder / burglary.

It could have a useful application if cused correctly with people with ability and understanding. Sadly, it would be in the hands of the police.

~:smoking:


I can, just about, see an argument for running a DNA sample taken after one arrest against all samples associated with unsolved crimes. Personally, I don't agree with this either, but reasonable people could differ on that.

What no reasonable person could possible agree with is retaining DNA samples from people who have not been charged, and which have not matched a sample on file, "just in case". Case in point: Damian Green. Why is the opposition spokesman's DNA on file, for ever, because he was arrested on some trumped up nonsense over leaked government documents?


My question: Is other information (e.g. name, birthdate, fingerprints) handled in the same way as DNA

Actually, no its not. If the police have inaccurate information about you you can require them to remove it from the PNC (Police National Computer). I had a case a while back where we did just that, removing what was just about the most serious imaginable claim that could have made about someone, which turned out to have been based on completely rubbish data. You would be appalled.



DNA itself is only information.

Yeah, but I'm not in the habit of leaving my name and address in every shop and bar I visit or every car and bus I use.

[Husar]

So in other words the EU saved the rights of the british people?
Interesting... :inquisitive:

[English assassin]

So in other words the EU saved the rights of the british people?
Interesting... :inquisitive:

ECHR. Not EU

[rory_20_uk]

I can, just about, see an argument for running a DNA sample taken after one arrest against all samples associated with unsolved crimes. Personally, I don't agree with this either, but reasonable people could differ on that.

What no reasonable person could possible agree with is retaining DNA samples from people who have not been charged, and which have not matched a sample on file, "just in case". Case in point: Damian Green. Why is the opposition spokesman's DNA on file, for ever, because he was arrested on some trumped up nonsense over leaked government documents?.

To increase rates of successfully catching criminals in past and future crimes? Was that a trick question?

One person's DNA just happens to keep being at burglary scenes. Might be worth asking them some questions. In the absence of other evidence, what are you goign to do on? Their shoe size?

It's not evidence that someone did something, but is a useful screening tool. I fail to see what the big deal is.: it is how the information is used that is the key part to focus on. If it could be used as sufficient grounds for detention without charge, deportation, suspension of habeus corpus this is bad - but it is not the DNA records at fault, but the government in power.

All my medical records are held "just in case". In many ways far more useful information. I still feel this is a useful thing.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh, I am forever torn on this subject. Part of me wishes a dna sample was taken of all citizens, at birth. And stored in an extensive databases, combined with all other possible databases, to be cross-checked with ease. We are not using all the technology at our disposal in the War on Crime.

Totalitarian? How about your five year old daughter got raped and the police has a semen sample, but has no database to compare it too, few means of gathering dna samples, and restricted acces to other databases? DNA is not perfect, but it goes a long way.

The other half of me knows that we can't trust governments. Rather, that only perennial mistrust of authority creates a trustworthy government. The 'government' is some anonymous pest who is taking out the frustrations of his miserable life on the first person whose file ends up on his desk. That guy on the other side of the counter who doesn't like your face. They simply should not have the means at their disposal to destroy your life by the stroke of a pen.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, we are. I'd give up a tremendous amount of my privacy just to catch one murderer or rapist a year. Yet the very people who should go after them are the ones to be trusted least with this information. :furious3:


A for this case specifically. Dear god, no. If we maybe shouldn't take a dna sample of everbody to begin with, then certainly not only of those people who are deemd future criminals at the age of five by some experimentational criminologist, or because a police officer didn't like somebody's haircut, or because some Hitler mini-me got a job with a uniform and now at last has his change of revenge and is going to show everybody he suspects of 'looking funny at him'. :no:


-~+~+~+<o(O)o>+~+~+~-

Oh, and:

Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" by the European Court of Human Rights' decision.

The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe Hurray for European cooperation! Spreading democracy and safeguarding human rights across the continent. :knight:

(For our overseas readers (by which I don't mean Britain): note that this is not an EU court though)[Edit - read the whole thread before replying, Louis.]

[English assassin]

To increase rates of successfully catching criminals in past and future crimes? Was that a trick question?

It wasn't intended as one, but now I am not sure.

What else might we do to increase rates of successfully catching criminals? How about barcoding everyone? Maybe we could implant RFID chips and have scanners in every street?

If I have not been convicted or or even charged with a offence then my DNA is absolutely no concern of the police and they can daisy off if they want it, no matter how useful they would find it. The day "what the police find useful" becomes the test is the day any sort of freedom dies. I am an innocent law abiding citizen (for the sake of argument:clown:) and I do not have to prove that fact to anyone, or give the police the time of day if I do not want to. They might find it useful if I asked them for permission and told them where I was going before leaving my house (after all, I might commit a crime) but that doesn't mean I should support such a system.

Yes, with a comprehensive DNA database, you might catch more criminals. (You'd lock up some innocent people too I have no doubt). But again, so what. You could replace beyond reasonable doubt with balance of probabilities, that would catch more criminals too, but that wouldn't make it a good idea.

And anyway, you can't trust them. It would start off with crime and wind up with DNA swabs to get a bloody TV licence.

[rory_20_uk]

DNA database is non invasive, unlike the other more extreme measures.

More incorrect convictions? I doubt it - it's a screening tool, not proof of guilt (although if the DNA was found inside a dead person it'd take a very good explanation not to get convicted).

Yes, going to civil rather than criminal evidence would lock up more people. And? So would locking up everyone...

~:smoking:

[JAG]

Disgusting forthe govt to defend the practice and rail against the ruling, but I don't really expect the govt to be anything but authoritarian and populist - which is a shame.

I am thankful for the EU and the ECHU, though our own system should really have sorted this out for itself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:inquisitive:

I think I mostly agree with JAG.

You know, enough of this and you guys might start to become libertarians. :beam:

CR

[seireikhaan]

I think I mostly agree with JAG.
:end:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Typical Conservative Party attitude - take away all power from the government and let corporations oppress instead for the purposes of their own interests, let criminals walk free onto their next victims because the big bad government might step on their toes/human rights.

Remember the true role of government - the preservation of property (aka life, health, liberty and possessions). Even in this liberal sense of a government, there is no reason why the government should not have records of people's DNA to catch criminals. How is my freedom restricted? All it means is that if I commit a crime I'm more likely to face justice - only a good thing for society!

Of course, there would need to be checks and balances etc to make sure that the information was not abused, but this should be the case with any personal information the government holds regardless.

[PBI]

:inquisitive:

I think I mostly agree with JAG.

You know, enough of this and you guys might start to become libertarians. :beam:

CR

Or to put another spin on it, the right is finally starting to catch up with what the liberal left has been saying all along about the likely function creep of draconian "anti-terror" laws. ~;)

In other news though, I am seriously wondering whether four years of the slimeball Cameron mightn't be such a bad thing, if only to prove that we do still have the power to vote a government out of office. And it is certainly heartening that the Conservatives have finally come to realise that human rights do not exist only to protect asylum seekers and benefit fraudsters.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Typical Conservative Party attitude - take away all power from the government and let corporations oppress instead for the purposes of their own interests, let criminals walk free onto their next victims because the big bad government might step on their toes/human rights.

No, I want people to have guns so criminals don't walk away from their first crime.


How is my freedom restricted? All it means is that if I commit a crime I'm more likely to face justice - only a good thing for society!

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Well, it looks like the UK still has a ways to go.

CR

[Vladimir]

Actually, no its not. If the police have inaccurate information about you you can require them to remove it from the PNC (Police National Computer). I had a case a while back where we did just that, removing what was just about the most serious imaginable claim that could have made about someone, which turned out to have been based on completely rubbish data. You would be appalled.

Then you would have to prove that your DNA is inaccurate?



Yeah, but I'm not in the habit of leaving my name and address in every shop and bar I visit or every car and bus I use.

Fingerprints, like DNA, can be used as circumstantial evidence.

[English assassin]

Then you would have to prove that your DNA is inaccurate?

I don't really want to debate the practicalities, for fear that we will lose sight of the fact that the principle is wrong.

But, for the record, your DNA is found at the crime scene. What does that prove? It proves your DNA was found at the crime scene. Nothing more. (I'm overlooking the possibility that the police put it there although don't imagine that couldn't happen.)

Does it prove you were at the scene? No. Does it prove you were at the scene during the crime? No. Does it prove you were involved in committing the crime? No.

Here's another one: the police cannot find your DNA at a crime scene. Proves you are innocent, right? No. Maybe you just got lucky.

DNA usually proves nothing, but juries especially are easily misled into thinking it proves everything.

So by having your DNA on a database you are in the position of potentially having to prove that some daisy witted inference being drawn from your DNA being found on the victim's coat is inaccurate. What, you don't remember she brushed against you getting off the tube 20 minutes before she was murdered? Tough. That's your hair on her collar, you don't have an innocent explaination, and you is going down.

[rory_20_uk]

Or for those who are not scaremongering for the tabloids...

You're still innocent until proven guilty. A burglar cuts himself at a crime. in a hurry to get away.

Now: police have some blood. Big deal. If they happen to stumble on the person they might get lucky
Or: they compare the DNA to the records. If someone comes up they could interview the person quickly, not hope that the criminal suddenly decides to give up. Perhaps there is even such things as stolen belongings at their house.

The use of DNA obviously depends on source: DNA from a urinal proves nothing useful; DNA from a place that the individual had no place being is far more useful.

That juries are ignorant / easily led should not mean evidence is inadmissible as the jury is too stupid. That is what the judge and lawyers are there for. If the current system can be derailed by something this basic, it should be overhauled.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, I want people to have guns so criminals don't walk away from their first crime.

I didn't say anything about guns, I don't stand firmly on either side in that debate. But that's OT.


:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Well, it looks like the UK still has a ways to go.

CR

:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:

How is my freedom being restricted? What can't I do that I couldn't do previously (except maybe get away with a crime)?

Although, I would say that the government cannot discriminate based on who it thinks could grow up to be criminals. Therefore, I agree with Louis that any system to take DNA samples should be universal.

At least the UK does not have a paranoid fear of its own government. Northern England and Scotland appreciate the affects that a lack of government regulation causes.

[Brenus]

“the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.” Based in Strasbourg. What these Euros are doing in giving lesson to UK?

“ECHR. Not EU” Casuist. They are Euros. Not good UK citizens. Their opinion is not valid for England…

“Totalitarian? How about your five year old daughter got raped and the police has a semen sample, but has no database to compare it too, few means of gathering dna samples, and restricted access to other databases? DNA is not perfect, but it goes a long way.”
Balance is the key. Why should my name or DNA appeared somewhere when I never done something illegal. I have things I am not proud of, but nothing illegal. So, why should I been treated as a potential criminal.
What about the lost and selling of the data?
Today, in England, a civil servant thought he had the right to systematically link the confidential documents from the government to his political obedience…
Systematic is the key word. Not one time, not for one good cause (lies on WMD) but for political gains…
So what happened if somebody for other gains (e.g. financial?) does the same thing, even for political gain?

[Ja'chyra]

I could agree to this but not at present, I think there are a number of questions that need answers.

- Is it helpful in solving crimes? Yes, but it isn't the be all and end all.
- Should it be stored? No, but then I think no-one should store information about you that you don't agree to
- If it is stored is it secure? Definately not based on the governments performance in storing everything from bank details to intelligence reports
- Does it infringe our, so called, human rights? Probably not if it could be managed properly with relevant safeguards
- Should we be labelling children as future scum? No way, given that argument I would be on there as I come from a single parent family on benefits in a poor area, I'm not a criminal.

I would say in a perfect world it wouldn't be needed, in a less perfect world we could trust the authorities to have our best interests at heart and do everything possible to protect us, in our world there is too much corruption and incompetence for this not to go wrong.

[Rhyfelwyr]

- Is it helpful in solving crimes? Yes, but it isn't the be all and end all.
- Should it be stored? No, but then I think no-one should store information about you that you don't agree to
- If it is stored is it secure? Definately not based on the governments performance in storing everything from bank details to intelligence reports
- Does it infringe our, so called, human rights? Probably not if it could be managed properly with relevant safeguards
- Should we be labelling children as future scum? No way, given that argument I would be on there as I come from a single parent family on benefits in a poor area, I'm not a criminal.

It does appear to be practical issues that are the main causes of concern with over this. Perhaps they should be tackled seperately, while first of all we consider whether such a system is good in theory.

If Labour would make the system universal and not guess who future criminals are, then I see no reason why it should not be implemented.

[Kralizec]

I can say without reservations that the ECHR is a great organisation. Unlike some other organisations with the "E" in it.

Kudos to them.

[Lord Winter]

There's already a clear parellel to DNA evidence bases, we've been taking fingerprints for years now and we havn't had any major problems. Thats not to say that the UK is right. We still don't go around and fingerprint everyone on the streets, but for convicted (emphisis being on convicted) felons I see no problem.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am equally against both Liberal and Conservative judicial activism. I don't believe that Original Meaning/Strict text is Conservative Activism.

The Supreme Court should defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution and its addendum. It should not act as an oracle - constantly divining meaning from the text. To an extent this is acceptable; in relation to the changing times and nature of technological evolution (search and seizure using DNA and Infrared snooping for example; this should not be done without a warrant because it is reasonably covered by search and seizure laws)

The funny thing is that some might say that Conservatives are in favor of a rigid and unmoving legal code. That is not true - we want the Constitution to guarantee certain basic rights and allow others to evolve through the legislature until people believe in them so much that they feel it is necessary to put it into the document by a wide margin. I am under the assumption that this was the role envisioned.

The enumerated powers are, however, vague on the role (which some have taken to mean that they can use a 9 panel court as a legislative body).