DNA Fingerprinting Of All UK Criminals

mapryan writes: "Here's a link to a story that's in today's Independent (UK) newspaper. Apparently, the goverment is planning to DNA fingerprint all criminals. How long before DNA fingerprinting of *all* new born babies is routine, and logged away in some National Police computer?" Not long. Rudy Giuliani, a U.S. politician, has already suggested that all infants have DNA samples taken at birth.

Comments

Brave New World...

[Brazilian Geek]

Aldus Huxley would have been proud of us, in so little time we - as a society - have already started to walk down the path he wrote...

Damn, I can imagine several good things from DNA fingerprinting (unrefutable signatures, perfect identity tests, possible location of lost/missing people, etc.) but I can also see ONE single argument as to why this is bad:

Man (as in species, not male) wants power. The ultimate power one person can have over others is the power to take their lives away - not by killing them, but to take away ANY and ALL freedom to do as they please. Think of it, would you prefer to be dead or to be a mindless minion? DNA fingerprinting takes away any means to keep yourself anonymous - that's why I think this is terrible. Normal folks (Janes, Johns and Rupauls) shouldn't have to do this - never.

One may argue that criminals deserve this and on some levels I'd agree - life sentance, repeat rapists or murders (some escape jail you know) and other VERY dangerous prisoners may deserve this but the legal system would have to be VERY VERY VERY trustworthy and apply this sentance only ocassionaly. It's a definate violation of privacy but this could be an intresting form of punishment for the repeat muderer - but not for the average pickpocket!

That's my rant... Mod as you wish.

Re:Brave New World...

[Weezul]

Criminals rights need not be central to the discussion. Searchable DNA database are just plain stupid no matter how you look at it for simple statistical reasons. I will explain:

Case 1: I'm a cop and I have a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the suspect and a DNA sample from the crime sceane. It is unlikely that I will get a false positive, but far from impossible.

Case 2: I'm a cop without a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the crime sceane and do a database search based on the sample. It is now about a million time more likely that I get a false positive. If I do this for 1000 case per year it is now 1 billion times more likely that I get a false positive sometime during the year. Ultimatly, I end up convicting a lot of innocent people based on bullshit.

There are two solution to this problem: (1) do not build finger print, DNA, etc. databases or (2) do not allow ANY evidence used as part of a search to enter into conviction, i.e. If a DNA search is used to identify suspects then DNA may not be used in court period.

Anyway, the U.S. already has a erious problem with false convictions based on DNA evidence from databases. There really needs to be some kind of reform of the policy allowing DNA evidence to be used both for locating suspects and for convictions.