Colin Pitchfork was the first person ever to be convicted on DNA evidence. That was as a result of voluntary mass-screening and suppose it's natural for the Dutch police to follow suit especially if they have no leads.
Interestingly, in that case a strong initial suspect was actually ruled out due to DNA profiling, so it's not all bad.
You're committing the birthday paradox error. If you take a stadium full of (say) football supporters, it's even money that two people in the stadium match. The odds that one of them matches (say) me or you, though, are still astronomical.
I might be missing something, but wouldn't it be true that (a) 100% certain that in a stadium with more than 366 people 2 have the same birthday and (b) the odds of one particular person matching my birthday is more or less 1/366 rather than "astronomical"?
And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?
In civilized countries with a functioning justice system, people do not get sent to jail on the basis of being friendless and a bit weird. Otherwise, slashdot would no longer exist, as you don't generally get internet access in prison.
DNA screening only looks at a few characteristics. Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match. If you take the DNA profiles of 8000 people, it is quite likely that one of them will match the criminals profile. Meanwhile, the criminal will almost certainly find some way to avoid giving a sample. So you get to put some innocent person through hell, and for what?
Oh, do fuck off. If an innocent person provides a match, they'll face some basic questioning (which may eliminate them as a suspect very quickly anyway), and if the worst comes to the worst the prosecutors still have to build a case with additional strong evidence. People don't get convicted on the basis of one piece of DNA screening evidence alone.
Also, you seem to be missing the point that anyone who does find a way not to give a sample will automatically be placing themselves on a likely suspects list and face further investigation anyway.
The risk of false positive isn't that meaningful unless they plan to convict solely on DNA evidence, which they never do. There has to be other factors, like they knew the victim, or live close by, or someone saw someone that looked like them, etc.
Yes, it's called "having a case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty". The only time people get convicted on a single piece of evidence is if the whole justice system is corrupt or incompetent beyond belief, which is to say your society is fundamentally fucked anyway.
Convince people they are being attacked, and they'll give you anything you want. Happens every day. Textbook case, ripped right out of that book written by the little general.
Or, in this case, convince people that they could act as good citizens and help solve a nasty crime. Oh, the evil genius of it!
Sure, a rape-and-murder like this is obviously forcible
But how do we know there even was a rape and murder? Why couldn't it be part of a worldwide government plot to engage our sympathies prior to allowing them to harvest our brains for alien lizard food? Huh?
Even worse... *puts on tinfoil hat* they could just cryogenically preserve the DNA samples in some warehouse. Then, every time they want to deal with an "undesirable" person (think Al Capone or Julian Assange), just plant their DNA in some crime scene and... presto!
*looks behind shoulder*
Once "they" are able to simply fit people up for crimes and get the conviction rubber-stamped, you are past the point where it matters if they use DNA, secret police "witnesses" or just rubber hoses to beat confessions out of people.
I think I'd say the same thing if it happened where I live. Having a rapist get away is horrible, of course, but we need to realize that not every crime can be solved without turning to totalitarian methods, and some not even then. I consider letting some criminals run free an acceptable price for not living in a totalitarian society.
I doubt you'd think the same if it was your sister or daughter who was raped and murdered.
Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.
If out of the 8000 people you want to test, 7998 prove negative, one refuses and the other runs away, you at least have a greatly reduced number of suspects to investigate.
There are too many stories coming now where people are wrongfully convicted because their DNA was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That is a flaw in the justice/court system, and nothing to do with DNA testing in itself.
If the courts allow convictions based on one coincidental piece of DNA alone, that has a reasonable explanation for being there, they aren't doing their job properly
That is what this boils down to. There is no "right" answer, but citizens of each country answer the question diferently.
Yes, there is a right answer. The right answer is, "Let me see your warrant."
So, say the police do house to house questioning when someone is murdered, you basically refuse to talk to them unless they have a warrant for your arrest?
They must fucking love you.
Do you have no concept of civic responsibility? Or is your freedom to be an arsehole more important than anything else?
it's a one-time effort, and the samples will not be kept.
Bullshit. They are lying, you can see their lips moving.
Ok, if teh evil gubmint can just lie and keep this DNA for future use in framing your for a crime, why don't they just come and kidnap your paranoid twits in the middle of the night and disappear you to some secret torture centre in Fuckknowswhereistan and beat/brainwash you into submission to their alien lizard overlord ways anyway?
it's not just "do you trust the government". If it also the (much more difficult) moral dilemma whether you want to collaborate in prosecuting a (possibly close) relative and presumably put all your family through a great deal of stress...
Why is it a difficult moral dilemma whether or not you should help convict a relative for raping and murdering someone?
I wouldn't hesitate for a second in helping to convict them, even if it was my husband/wife.
You're not talking about helping someone avoid a speeding fine.
A few years back there was a bit of a test done where samples were submitted to several different testing companies to check if the 'suspect' matched. 75% of the companies returned positive results. Too bad the reality is they were unrelated samples. So it looks like the companies were returning false positives 3 out of 4 times if they thought it would help the police/prosecution.
It's not always like that, and it's a good reason for the defense to do tests as well, but it does bring in to question the usability of such techniques when they are so commonly and easily misused & abused.
Do you seriously think the courts would allow DNA evidence if it was only 25% accurate?
And they're claiming they're looking for "family members", but notice they're not asking for dna samples from female participants. Either this is a little white lie designed to minimize the outrage the men must be feeling at being singled out, or perhaps they're hoping to nab a male teenager through the analysis of his fathers' dna (since getting dna from hundreds of male teenagers in the vicinity may actually be harder to achieve politically).
Or, just maybe, due to the fact that this was a rape and murder, they can be certain it was a man who did it. As in, there was semen present in the victim's body that didn't belong there.
Now it turns out they got the guy. So it just boils down to a question of whether the ends justifies the mean.
Did they? Most law enforcement is honest about such things. Still, there exists a small sub group that really just wants to close cases. If they did their canvasing because they wanted to claim success instead of justice...
Correlation is not causation, but there seems to be correlation here. (I don't know much about the case, other evidence, etc.)
I know, let's not bother trying and convicting any criminals, because you can never be 100% absolutely certain of anything, so there is always the likelihood that some innocent people may end up in jail.
Shit man, I WISH they'd try something like that in Winnipeg. I'd be damn fucking PROUD to be published on a list of "those who didn't cater to the OBVIOUS overstepping of the authorities". I'd be tempted to ask if they wish me to wear a red armband as well to indicate I didn't take part in this.
But in general, I'd ask they put my name front and goddamn center as one of the people who didn't take part.
We need to get together and have everyone give samples of bodily fluids, containing our DNA, mix them together thoroughly, and spray the stuff EVERYWHERE, so that we can get our fucking privacy back by making it impossible to determine absolutely using our DNA whether or not any one of us has been somewhere, or anywhere, so we can once more be free from the prying, spying eyes of the sick voyeurs who make our laws.
Kind of like how at the end of Spartacus, everyone started exclaiming that each one of them was Spartacus, shouting "I am Spartacus!"
My response to this Gatacoid civilization we're developing.
If you don't want to get caught by DNA for the rape and muder of a schoolgirl, how about you don't go around raping and murdering schoolgirls?
Slashdot Mirror
Colin Pitchfork was the first person ever to be convicted on DNA evidence. That was as a result of voluntary mass-screening and suppose it's natural for the Dutch police to follow suit especially if they have no leads.
Interestingly, in that case a strong initial suspect was actually ruled out due to DNA profiling, so it's not all bad.
You're committing the birthday paradox error. If you take a stadium full of (say) football supporters, it's even money that two people in the stadium match. The odds that one of them matches (say) me or you, though, are still astronomical.
I might be missing something, but wouldn't it be true that (a) 100% certain that in a stadium with more than 366 people 2 have the same birthday and (b) the odds of one particular person matching my birthday is more or less 1/366 rather than "astronomical"?
And what if you're a 1-in-7000 guy, and happen to not have alibi and don't have many friends around the place cause you're seen as a bit weird?
In civilized countries with a functioning justice system, people do not get sent to jail on the basis of being friendless and a bit weird. Otherwise, slashdot would no longer exist, as you don't generally get internet access in prison.
DNA screening only looks at a few characteristics. Take two random people, and there is about a 1-in-7000 chance that their DNA profiles will match. If you take the DNA profiles of 8000 people, it is quite likely that one of them will match the criminals profile. Meanwhile, the criminal will almost certainly find some way to avoid giving a sample. So you get to put some innocent person through hell, and for what?
Oh, do fuck off. If an innocent person provides a match, they'll face some basic questioning (which may eliminate them as a suspect very quickly anyway), and if the worst comes to the worst the prosecutors still have to build a case with additional strong evidence. People don't get convicted on the basis of one piece of DNA screening evidence alone.
Also, you seem to be missing the point that anyone who does find a way not to give a sample will automatically be placing themselves on a likely suspects list and face further investigation anyway.
The risk of false positive isn't that meaningful unless they plan to convict solely on DNA evidence, which they never do. There has to be other factors, like they knew the victim, or live close by, or someone saw someone that looked like them, etc.
Yes, it's called "having a case that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty". The only time people get convicted on a single piece of evidence is if the whole justice system is corrupt or incompetent beyond belief, which is to say your society is fundamentally fucked anyway.
Convince people they are being attacked, and they'll give you anything you want. Happens every day. Textbook case, ripped right out of that book written by the little general.
Or, in this case, convince people that they could act as good citizens and help solve a nasty crime. Oh, the evil genius of it!
I can only see this as a slippery slope.
You are aware that the slippery slope fallacy is, in fact, a fallacy?
Sure, a rape-and-murder like this is obviously forcible
But how do we know there even was a rape and murder? Why couldn't it be part of a worldwide government plot to engage our sympathies prior to allowing them to harvest our brains for alien lizard food? Huh?
This is the century of the fruitbat.
Even worse... *puts on tinfoil hat* they could just cryogenically preserve the DNA samples in some warehouse. Then, every time they want to deal with an "undesirable" person (think Al Capone or Julian Assange), just plant their DNA in some crime scene and... presto!
*looks behind shoulder*
Once "they" are able to simply fit people up for crimes and get the conviction rubber-stamped, you are past the point where it matters if they use DNA, secret police "witnesses" or just rubber hoses to beat confessions out of people.
I think I'd say the same thing if it happened where I live. Having a rapist get away is horrible, of course, but we need to realize that not every crime can be solved without turning to totalitarian methods, and some not even then. I consider letting some criminals run free an acceptable price for not living in a totalitarian society.
I doubt you'd think the same if it was your sister or daughter who was raped and murdered.
Even so, I sincerely doubt that this will lead to the perpetrator, for obvious reasons.
If out of the 8000 people you want to test, 7998 prove negative, one refuses and the other runs away, you at least have a greatly reduced number of suspects to investigate.
There are too many stories coming now where people are wrongfully convicted because their DNA was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That is a flaw in the justice/court system, and nothing to do with DNA testing in itself.
If the courts allow convictions based on one coincidental piece of DNA alone, that has a reasonable explanation for being there, they aren't doing their job properly
That is what this boils down to. There is no "right" answer, but citizens of each country answer the question diferently.
Yes, there is a right answer. The right answer is, "Let me see your warrant."
So, say the police do house to house questioning when someone is murdered, you basically refuse to talk to them unless they have a warrant for your arrest?
They must fucking love you.
Do you have no concept of civic responsibility? Or is your freedom to be an arsehole more important than anything else?
it's a one-time effort, and the samples will not be kept.
Bullshit. They are lying, you can see their lips moving.
Ok, if teh evil gubmint can just lie and keep this DNA for future use in framing your for a crime, why don't they just come and kidnap your paranoid twits in the middle of the night and disappear you to some secret torture centre in Fuckknowswhereistan and beat/brainwash you into submission to their alien lizard overlord ways anyway?
The police/government are acting on behalf of the majority of people, so yes, you as an individual are secondary to that.
Tough. You can indeed be physically detained/imprisoned if you commit a crime such as murder.
You internet tough guys must get into a lot of unnecessary trouble in the real world with your antagonistic attitude towards the police.
it's not just "do you trust the government". If it also the (much more difficult) moral dilemma whether you want to collaborate in prosecuting a (possibly close) relative and presumably put all your family through a great deal of stress...
Why is it a difficult moral dilemma whether or not you should help convict a relative for raping and murdering someone?
I wouldn't hesitate for a second in helping to convict them, even if it was my husband/wife.
You're not talking about helping someone avoid a speeding fine.
they might happen to match the sample
Yes, if they're the fucking murderer.
A few years back there was a bit of a test done where samples were submitted to several different testing companies to check if the 'suspect' matched. 75% of the companies returned positive results. Too bad the reality is they were unrelated samples. So it looks like the companies were returning false positives 3 out of 4 times if they thought it would help the police/prosecution. It's not always like that, and it's a good reason for the defense to do tests as well, but it does bring in to question the usability of such techniques when they are so commonly and easily misused & abused.
Do you seriously think the courts would allow DNA evidence if it was only 25% accurate?
And they're claiming they're looking for "family members", but notice they're not asking for dna samples from female participants. Either this is a little white lie designed to minimize the outrage the men must be feeling at being singled out, or perhaps they're hoping to nab a male teenager through the analysis of his fathers' dna (since getting dna from hundreds of male teenagers in the vicinity may actually be harder to achieve politically) .
Or, just maybe, due to the fact that this was a rape and murder, they can be certain it was a man who did it. As in, there was semen present in the victim's body that didn't belong there.
Now it turns out they got the guy. So it just boils down to a question of whether the ends justifies the mean.
Did they? Most law enforcement is honest about such things. Still, there exists a small sub group that really just wants to close cases. If they did their canvasing because they wanted to claim success instead of justice...
Correlation is not causation, but there seems to be correlation here. (I don't know much about the case, other evidence, etc.)
I know, let's not bother trying and convicting any criminals, because you can never be 100% absolutely certain of anything, so there is always the likelihood that some innocent people may end up in jail.
Does anyone else wonder what kind of monster A.I. they have in some basement sifting through all of this data?
No. Most of us aren't paranoid tinfoil-hat wearing fantasists. Oh, wait, this is slashdot...
There's no guy so tough as an anonymous internet tough guy.
Shit man, I WISH they'd try something like that in Winnipeg. I'd be damn fucking PROUD to be published on a list of "those who didn't cater to the OBVIOUS overstepping of the authorities". I'd be tempted to ask if they wish me to wear a red armband as well to indicate I didn't take part in this.
But in general, I'd ask they put my name front and goddamn center as one of the people who didn't take part.
Says Mr AC.
We need to get together and have everyone give samples of bodily fluids, containing our DNA, mix them together thoroughly, and spray the stuff EVERYWHERE, so that we can get our fucking privacy back by making it impossible to determine absolutely using our DNA whether or not any one of us has been somewhere, or anywhere, so we can once more be free from the prying, spying eyes of the sick voyeurs who make our laws.
Kind of like how at the end of Spartacus, everyone started exclaiming that each one of them was Spartacus, shouting "I am Spartacus!"
My response to this Gatacoid civilization we're developing.
If you don't want to get caught by DNA for the rape and muder of a schoolgirl, how about you don't go around raping and murdering schoolgirls?