View Full Version : DNA Database Strikes Again Thank Goodness!
Without the Police DNA Database, the culprits of the Ipswich murders and the Sally Ann Bowman murder would still be free to kill again, all because they had offended an unrelated crime.
Is it time to extend the database to a wider group of people than convicted persons?
I hope you didn't burn yourself lighting that touchpaper Rheg!;)
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:00
absolutely yes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Get DNA in a database from everyone at birth.
Have I suddenely gone back in time??
For some reason it feels like 1984.....
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:04
Just re-reading the options again and to my mind option 2 or three would have exactly the same result.
The police would simply suspect everyone of something, register their DNA and that's it for life.
So I could have voted for that instead of the 3rd one :D
absolutely yes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Get DNA in a database from everyone at birth.
Tell that to WPC Shirley McKie!:eek:
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:10
Tell that to WPC Shirley McKie!:eek:
I believe that was false fingerprint evidence :)
DeHaviLand
22-Feb-08, 19:12
I believe that was false fingerprint evidence :)
That may be so, but didn't she think she had nothing to hide and nothing to fear?
I believe that was false fingerprint evidence :)
Try Googling DNA mistakes Nick..fascinating reading!
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:25
Any evidence needs to be honestly treated. If anyone in a position of trust for whatever reason gives a false impression based on their expert assesment of the evidence found then a miscarriage of justice can occur.
But when it is possible to positively identify someone based on their DNA profile, and when we seem to be in the throws of a marked increase in crime against the individual and against property why not provide the police with the tools to do their job.
If DNA is recovered from a crime scene and the individual denies ever having been there it must surely lead to further investigation and a look for further evidence of guilt. If someone gives a legitimate reason for the presence of their DNA at the scene of crime then it almost rules out the DNA as evidence and then it is back to finding additional evidence to support the accusation of guilt.
But if the experts interpreting the evidence give false testimony then people may be wrongly convicted no matter what evidence is adduced.
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:29
Try Googling DNA mistakes Nick..fascinating reading!
Indeed it is and I've read a great deal on the subject. It should not be seen as a magic bullet which automatically leads to conviction.
However if it can point to a possible perpetrator, and other evidence can lead to conviction why not allow the police to at least have the ability to trace the possible suspects and eliminate them based on the other evidence.
DNA traces are not of themselves proof of anyones guilt, rather the provide a means of establishing whether or not an individual may have been in a particular location at some time in the past.
If someone gives a legitimate reason for the presence of their DNA at the scene of crime then it almost rules out the DNA as evidence and then it is back to finding additional evidence to support the accusation of guilt.
Which led to what must have been the weakest defence of all time in the Sally Ann Bowman murder case. Just what was his defence team thinking, the jury could be the most gullible of all time?
percy toboggan
22-Feb-08, 19:33
absolutely yes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Get DNA in a database from everyone at birth.
An Orweliian nightmare and ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
I voted for the second option but would add a caviat 'Criminal convicts and those acquitted of serious charges against the person.'
How would a mother and father of any new born feel as the
Police representative loomed over their babe with a cotton wool swab.
We should also rememebr that DNA science is not infallible and over reliance puts too much faith in the hands of scientists and experts...both of whom have been proved to be wrong before. There must always be supporting evidence.
Could I have a picture question please?
Crikey, this is a cracker of a question.
Obviously, if a National DNA Database helped track down criminals at an early stage in their career, it's a good thing, especially if the DNA was obtained early on.
Having everybody's DNA on file smacks of a Big Brother Society as Saveman suggests and that is a bad thing because it could be used by other official agencies for other purposes.
Yea but....no but....yea but.
I haven't been able to make my mind up on this to the point where I feel I could vote and put forward an argument for my choice.
Good luck with this one Orgers.
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:35
Which led to what must have been the weakest defence of all time in the Sally Ann Bowman murder case. Just what was his defence team thinking, the jury could be the most gullible of all time?
And a conviction :D
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:40
Just as a matter of interest from those that believe that it is only right to take and keep DNA records from "criminals".
Do you believe that it is right to include on that database someone who is simply guilty of a minor motoring offence? No other criminal history at all? How is that any more justifiable than keeping DNA records from others, it certainly does not to my mind at least seem to point to the potential to kill, maim, rape, rob, or in any other way carry out "real" crimes. And yet those folks are for the rest of their lives stigmatised with a DNA record for the police to check anytime they want.
percy toboggan
22-Feb-08, 19:44
Just as a matter of interest from those that believe that it is only right to take and keep DNA records from "criminals".
Do you believe that it is right to include on that database someone who is simply guilty of a minor motoring offence? No other criminal history at all? How is that any more justifiable than keeping DNA records from others, it certainly does not to my mind at least seem to point to the potential to kill, maim, rape, rob, or in any other way carry out "real" crimes. And yet those folks are for the rest of their lives stigmatised with a DNA record for the police to check anytime they want.
Which is far more justifiable than swabbing a new born emerging from the womb. Your logic seems a tad peverse if I may say so...why 'stigmatise' an innocent infant as you suggested earlier?
Incidentally I don't think you do get swabbed for 'minor motoring offences'
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 19:47
the poll asks about criminal convictions - which includes minor motoring offences.
There is no stigma attached if everyone is included.
Why tie one hand behind the polices back by making it more difficult than need be to identify in a fairly positive manner those who have been at a particular location where a crime has occurred?
Also should have said earlier. Former suspects are innocent as they have not been found guilty. Why should their DNA be retained?
DeHaviLand
22-Feb-08, 20:11
Just as a matter of interest from those that believe that it is only right to take and keep DNA records from "criminals".
Do you believe that it is right to include on that database someone who is simply guilty of a minor motoring offence? No other criminal history at all? How is that any more justifiable than keeping DNA records from others, it certainly does not to my mind at least seem to point to the potential to kill, maim, rape, rob, or in any other way carry out "real" crimes. And yet those folks are for the rest of their lives stigmatised with a DNA record for the police to check anytime they want.
No, they're not. I've never heard of anyone being asked to post off a DNA sample, along with their driving licence and £60 fixed penalty for a speeding offence:lol::lol:
NickInTheNorth
22-Feb-08, 20:37
correct :) My mistake for which I apologise.
DNA samples can be taken for anyone detained in a police station for a "recordable" offence. This includes any offence for which a sentence of imprisonment may be made.
In addition it includes the list of miscellaneous offences listed here (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.routledgecavendish.com/textbooks/9781859417058/updates/7.asp).
Interestingly once a sample is taken it no longer needs to be removed from the database even if the person it was taken from faced no charges or was found not guilty.
They can take their dna database and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
All this absolute bull about Nothing to hide, nothing to fear just feeds the governments quest to have a population of cattle. Will those that agree be happy to have themselves implanted with a microchip, nothing to hide, nothing to fear? A database of fingerprints, nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Surveillance cameras watching your every move, oh, we already have those but then again, nothing to hide nothing to fear. We are all being taken for a walk!
They can take their dna database and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
All this absolute bull about Nothing to hide, nothing to fear just feeds the governments quest to have a population of cattle. Will those that agree be happy to have themselves implanted with a microchip, nothing to hide, nothing to fear? A database of fingerprints, nothing to hide, nothing to fear? Surveillance cameras watching your every move, oh, we already have those but then again, nothing to hide nothing to fear. We are all being taken for a walk!
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is such a terrifying concept for me that I might even be tempted to use some of TBH's flamboyant language in recording my opposition.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is such a terrifying concept for me that I might even be tempted to use some of TBH's flamboyant language in recording my opposition.If that is flamboyant language then god help me.
If that is flamboyant language then god help me.
The flamboyant part (for me) was my actually including your quote in my post. :)
The flamboyant part (for me) was my actually including your quote in my post. :)A bit cryptic for me Canuck but hey.
If that is flamboyant language then god help me.
Not even sure god would agree with the 'nothing to hide..nothing to fear' camp TBH...look what happened to his laddie!
(I make this argument hypothetically as a staunch non believer!)
absolutely yes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Get DNA in a database from everyone at birth.
What happens when what is your most personal and unique information gets sold/shared ....maybe to/with insurance companies. Maybe they find a weakness in your DNA that makes you more suceptible to ..... lets say being overweight. It doesn't mean that you are, just that you have the genes that might make you more susceptible. Lets say you need life insurance/health insurance...... and you cannot get it except at exorbitant price.
And also, what happens to the presumtion of innocent untill proven guilty? I do not want to be considered a potencial criminal.
....maybe to/with insurance companies. Maybe they find a weakness in your DNA that makes you more suceptible to ..... lets say being overweight. It doesn't mean that you are, just that you have the genes that might make you more susceptible. Lets say you need life insurance/health insurance...... and you cannot get it except at exorbitant price.
.
Do you think insurance premiums should be levied at a level which is appropriate to your risk factor? They do it all the time with job, location, health, etc, why should DNA be any different?
Do you think insurance premiums should be levied at a level which appropriate to your risk factor? They do it all the time with job, location, health, etc, why should DNA be any different?
Because those least able to afford it through having a disabling hereditary condition would be the ones charged at the highest rate!
Because those least able to afford it through having a disabling hereditary condition would be the ones charged at the highest rate!
They wouldn't want to buy a risk against it anyway because they know already that they have it. You don't need a DNA test to find out if you have a disabling hereditary condition if it is already disabling.
DNA data should belong to a person and no one else. I do not agree with keeping DNA from anyone except suspects.
Imagine the scenerio where they have the DNA of everyone:
-----------
Imagine I own a set of golf clubs. I decide I dont want them and sell them. My DNA is on the clubs. The chap I sell them too, his mate borrows one and knocks a chap over the head killing him. I happen to be in the same town that night by chance.
Later the police test the club and find DNA on it which happens to be mine. They run it through the database and my name pops up. I happened to have been in the same town and have no alibi, guess who goes down? Me.
--------
No chance matey!
DNA data should belong to a person and no one else. I do not agree with keeping DNA from anyone except suspects.
Imagine the scenerio where they have the DNA of everyone:
-----------
Imagine I own a set of golf clubs. I decide I dont want them and sell them. My DNA is on the clubs. The chap I sell them too, his mate borrows one and knocks a chap over the head killing him. I happen to be in the same town that night by chance.
Later the police test the club and find DNA on it which happens to be mine. They run it through the database and my name pops up. I happened to have been in the same town and have no alibi, guess who goes down? Me.
--------
No chance matey!
Surely the chances of that are actually longer than a chance match, so the DNA evidence would be extremely unsafe anyway, so you wouldn't go down.
Surely the chances of that are actually longer than a chance match, so the DNA evidence would be extremely unsafe anyway, so you wouldn't go down.
The day is surely coming when the DNA testing will be improved to the point of absolute match. Then the golf clubs (or anything else) do come into play. I just don't want to go anywhere near there.
The day is surely coming when the DNA testing will be improved to the point of absolute match.As far as I know they are going to have some trouble with Identical twins.
Not even sure god would agree with the 'nothing to hide..nothing to fear' camp TBH...look what happened to his laddie!
(I make this argument hypothetically as a staunch non believer!)And God is supposedly Omnipotent:lol:
luskentyre
23-Feb-08, 01:53
How would a mother and father of any new born feel as the
Police representative loomed over their babe with a cotton wool swab.
We should also rememebr that DNA science is not infallible and over reliance puts too much faith in the hands of scientists and experts...both of whom have been proved to be wrong before. There must always be supporting evidence.
Mmm, being ever so slightly dramatic and unrealistic there... I presume that a DNA sample would be taken when other tests are conducted.
As for the fallibility, no one has suggested it's 100%, but it's a lot more reliable than any other forms of evidence.
It should also be pointed out that DNA evidence can also be used to prove innocence as well as guilt.
It is heartening to see that the majority vote is for DNA testing for everyone. We should remember that it can be used for other purposes other than 'chasing' up criminals. It can be used for identifying terrorists, criminals that have 'laid low' for years and changed their appearance, identifying bodies that would otherwise be 'John Doe's', identifying 'absent' fathers. It can also highlight potential genetic clashes when couples consider having children.
DNA data should belong to a person and no one else. I do not agree with keeping DNA from anyone except suspects.
Imagine the scenerio where they have the DNA of everyone:
-----------
Imagine I own a set of golf clubs. I decide I dont want them and sell them. My DNA is on the clubs. The chap I sell them too, his mate borrows one and knocks a chap over the head killing him. I happen to be in the same town that night by chance.
Later the police test the club and find DNA on it which happens to be mine. They run it through the database and my name pops up. I happened to have been in the same town and have no alibi, guess who goes down? Me.
--------
No chance matey!
Personally, I would keep a receipt of sale. ;)
DNA data should belong to a person and no one else. I do not agree with keeping DNA from anyone except suspects.
Imagine the scenerio where they have the DNA of everyone:
-----------
Imagine I own a set of golf clubs. I decide I dont want them and sell them. My DNA is on the clubs. The chap I sell them too, his mate borrows one and knocks a chap over the head killing him. I happen to be in the same town that night by chance.
Later the police test the club and find DNA on it which happens to be mine. They run it through the database and my name pops up. I happened to have been in the same town and have no alibi, guess who goes down? Me.
--------
No chance matey!
No court in the world would be able to put you away on that alone (except for maybe Jill Dando jury!!). Think of the starter for ten though. The cops would speak to you, go and speak to the guy you sold them to, and then find the guy who used it for the crime. Better that than let the "Phantom slicer o Caithness" to continue 3 ironin folk to death?
Imagine how you would feel if you knew that you could have prevented someone else getting hurt and never?
gillian17
23-Feb-08, 15:02
DNA evidence is extremely fallible, probably the most fallible, of evidence. It is garbage DNA, serves no purpose and can be identical in two people. Statistically, thats unlikely, but it exists because it is the most able to duplicate itself. Statistics is another subject ie Most people in Caithness have more than the average number of legs!
Next as pointed out above, DNA can last for a very long time and incriminate people present years ago. I would have to research that because I am not sure any DNA would not mutate/deteriorate over a matter of days once separated from its host cell
Next the only genome that is known is known as the Human Genome and took decades to establish. However, it is not THE Human Genome it is Craig Ventnor's genome and I would bet a pound to one guanine coupling that if it was done again it would be different, if only slightly.
Next, where does all this end. Try getting a mortgage if someone has a criminal susceptability gene. Or health insurance if one's grandfather, who died aged 22 from a German mortar, had a dodgy prostrate gene.
Next, anyone who believes that DNA will not be made public possesses a gullibility gene.
I have made these points hurriedly and welcome any corrections.
Thanks
Do you think insurance premiums should be levied at a level which appropriate to your risk factor? They do it all the time with job, location, health, etc, why should DNA be any different?
You have a point there, Rheghead. It is a train of thought that had not occurred to me. All very well if it were kept secret, but the Gov't have not exactly excelled in that skill, have they! :confused
Do you think insurance premiums should be levied at a level which appropriate to your risk factor? They do it all the time with job, location, health, etc, why should DNA be any different?
Because unlike your job, location, nutrition, excercise, etc, etc. you have NO choice with your DNA and if genetic perfection starts to determine your level/rate of insurance, how long before "gene perfection" is a requirement for everything and a detemines your social standing..... not a new idea historically but ethically very controversial.
Because unlike your job, location, nutrition, excercise, etc, etc. you have NO choice with your DNA and if genetic perfection starts to determine your level/rate of insurance, how long before "gene perfection" is a requirement for everything and a detemines your social standing..... not a new idea historically but ethically very controversial.
Your DNA affects your height, good or bad looks, propensity to Faith, health, skin colour, intelligence etc etc, these things can and do determine one's social standing and you don't need a DNA test to determine what level of those things you have. In other words, we don't have any choice anyway if a DNA test is provided by everyone or not anyway.
Your DNA determines your height, good or bad looks, propensity to Faith, health, skin colour, intelligence etc etc, these things can and do determine one's social standing and you don't need a DNA test to determine what level of those things you have. In other words, we don't have any choice anyway if a DNA test is provided by everyone or not anyway.
So then no one on merit or hard work can hope to improve their lot in life- it's ALL genetic. I like your thinking not.
Anyway, DNA testing for the detection of future criminal activity would be garanteed to be only for that use. Aside from costing alot more than ID cards ever would, and they are already costing so much that the government is backtracking, so how would there ever be money for blanket DNA testing, what are the chances that this information would be held securely? My guess is nil.
My DNA is mine alone. I can choose to share it with my children. And that is the way I want to keep it.
So then no one on merit or hard work can hope to improve their lot in life- it's ALL genetic.
We can improve our lot in life through hard work etc despite our DNA. I never said it is ALL genetic, you are twisting my post to suit your own bias.
The thing with DNA testing with everyone is that we can tailor our lifestyles and health regimes to promote our health despite the drawbacks of what our parents have given us in the form of DNA. This approach would promote health as well as provide a useful tool for the detection of crime.
If your child was raped and left for dead, you would want the police to check the DNA left at the scene against a full DNA database of the UK population?:confused
Pot calling kettle black. I did not say I did not want DNA testing for crime. I think it is an important tool ( among others) for finding criminals. However, if I have not been arrested there is no reason for my DNA to be on a data base. That is the way it is now and I am fine with that.
Selection of DNA to promote health.......genetic selection...... heil.
Selection of DNA to promote health.......genetic selection...... heil.
I never mentioned any selection of DNA, again you are selecting to read what you want to read from my posts or you have honestly misunderstood.
Your Nazi 'heil' was totally unwarranted as I was not suggesting any eugenic programme.
How does DNA determine someones social standing? George111 was supposedly mad.
How does DNA determine someones social standing? George111 was supposedly mad.
As opposed to the comparative 'sanity' of all other Royals!;)
absolutely yes.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Get DNA in a database from everyone at birth.
Couldn't have put it better myself. If it puts criminals behind bars then its and advance in criminology that we should use.
Highland Laddie
23-Feb-08, 22:22
As opposed to the comparative 'sanity' of all other Royals!;)
No OBE for you then Karia ;)
luskentyre
24-Feb-08, 03:48
Couldn't have put it better myself. If it puts criminals behind bars then its and advance in criminology that we should use.
Absolutely, but I fear that paranoia and misinformation will prevent this from being used for the common good.
Last October a man was arrested as a result of DNA for a serious sexual assault on a girl many years ago. A hair which had become trapped in a ring the girl was wearing carried his DNA. This came to lght after he was arrested for being drunk after a football match fairly recently.
As a result of him appearing in court last October he was marked down as a sex offender in the local area with all the attendant problems from certain sections of society that entails. The accusation almost destroyed his marriage. He was tagged and subject to a stringent curfew.
The other week he appeared in Crown Court where the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence in the case, stating there was insufficient evidence to achieve a conviction.
That is the case for the Prosecution.
Now come the facts. The description given by the girl, now a woman, at the time the offence was originally reported was that her attacker was a tall, well built black male.
The male who has been charged and awaiting trial for over four months was 5 feet 6 inches short, slim, oh yes, and white.
The only possibility suggested of how his hair got on the girls ring was that he had, around that time, a hospital porter and the girl had been taken to hospital as a result of the attack.
Note that the Crown Prosecution Service did not say in court that they had an innocent person in the dock but only that there was "insufficient evidence to convict him.
The question I ask myself is, what if that man had been tall and black or the assailant short and white? That DNA evidence alone would, without a doubt, have led to a conviction and a lengthy prison sentence on a totally innocent person.
I'm just glad I have never had to go what he, his family and his friends must have gone through.
And what about the girl, now a woman? To be told her assailant had definitely been caught only to be faced with the fact that it was obviously the wrong person. What must that have done to her?
If you have done nothing wrong yuo have nothing to fear? He had done nothing wrong, but he certainly had an awful lot to fear!
The current attitude that everybody potentially a violent danger to society and should be monitored from the cradle to the grave, and only trhen declared innocent is the mindset of totalitarian dictators and not a free society.
People are blinded by the "it only affects other people" mentality and simply refuse to look at the very real risk of the information being dangerously misused.
But this is Britain, that sort of thing could never happen here, only less civilised Countries do things like that, don't they?
And don't any of you leave anything lying about when I'm around because the next time I commit a crime I'll make sure that the item is carelessly dropped at the scene so your DNA is there to be found. But, of course, nobody would ever think of doing that, would they?
gillian17
24-Feb-08, 08:37
Rheghead its up to you to start the ball rolling.
Post your DNA profile on this site.
Giving it to the Government is exactly the same thing.
In fact if a copper has ever taken a dislike to the way you walk then it probably is in the public domain now.
The only difference being that it will have you name, photograph, National Insurance Number, Passport Number, criminal record, school report, wife's kinky sex habits, council tax payments etc.
And you hide behind a pseudonym, slightly inappropriate, if not hypocritical.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Have I suddenely gone back in time??
For some reason it feels like 1984.....
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is such a terrifying concept for me that I might even be tempted to use some of TBH's flamboyant language in recording my opposition.
I agree with Saveman and canuck. Nothing to fear nothing to hide sounds like something that dictators would have said throughout history to control the general population.
Last October a man was arrested as a result of DNA for a serious sexual assault on a girl many years ago. A hair which had become trapped in a ring the girl was wearing carried his DNA. This came to lght after he was arrested for being drunk after a football match fairly recently.
As a result of him appearing in court last October he was marked down as a sex offender in the local area with all the attendant problems from certain sections of society that entails. The accusation almost destroyed his marriage. He was tagged and subject to a stringent curfew.
The other week he appeared in Crown Court where the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence in the case, stating there was insufficient evidence to achieve a conviction.
That is the case for the Prosecution.
Now come the facts. The description given by the girl, now a woman, at the time the offence was originally reported was that her attacker was a tall, well built black male.
The male who has been charged and awaiting trial for over four months was 5 feet 6 inches short, slim, oh yes, and white.
The only possibility suggested of how his hair got on the girls ring was that he had, around that time, a hospital porter and the girl had been taken to hospital as a result of the attack.
Note that the Crown Prosecution Service did not say in court that they had an innocent person in the dock but only that there was "insufficient evidence to convict him.
The question I ask myself is, what if that man had been tall and black or the assailant short and white? That DNA evidence alone would, without a doubt, have led to a conviction and a lengthy prison sentence on a totally innocent person.
I'm just glad I have never had to go what he, his family and his friends must have gone through.
And what about the girl, now a woman? To be told her assailant had definitely been caught only to be faced with the fact that it was obviously the wrong person. What must that have done to her?
If you have done nothing wrong yuo have nothing to fear? He had done nothing wrong, but he certainly had an awful lot to fear!
The current attitude that everybody potentially a violent danger to society and should be monitored from the cradle to the grave, and only trhen declared innocent is the mindset of totalitarian dictators and not a free society.
People are blinded by the "it only affects other people" mentality and simply refuse to look at the very real risk of the information being dangerously misused.
But this is Britain, that sort of thing could never happen here, only less civilised Countries do things like that, don't they?
And don't any of you leave anything lying about when I'm around because the next time I commit a crime I'll make sure that the item is carelessly dropped at the scene so your DNA is there to be found. But, of course, nobody would ever think of doing that, would they?
A good example as to why there are so many problems with this concept!
j4bberw0ck
24-Feb-08, 10:32
One for the science fiction readers amongst you (Nick) who believe that if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear. Isaac Asimov, and the Robot collections of short stories. Mankind set in place the First, Second and Third Laws of Robotics to protect humans from robots – basically, no robot may harm a human, or allow a human being to come to harm.
Great! Tame servants all round, massive efficiencies, a new Golden Age. Robots become more embedded in human society, more accepted, more trusted and crucially, taken for granted. And then in pursuit of the objectives of service to the human race, they evolve the Zeroth Law, which ranks higher in priority to the others – humanity must not be permitted to harm itself, or to come to harm.
It’s a purer statement of the other laws in some ways, but terrifying in its results, because now the robots have to use their superior strength and power and intellect – and their position in human society – to prevent humanity ever coming to harm. So they have to control humanity’s every thought and action. And crucially, where before the Three Laws absolutely prevented a Robot from harming a human being, the Zeroth Law implicitly allows it because if a human, or any number of humans up to half the population has to die or be held imprisoned for the good of the greatest number, then so be it. Any human, if thought of by the Robots as threat to other humans, can be deprived of their freedom or their life to prevent a crime happening. Oh, Brave New (Crime Free) World!
This short adaptation was brought to you by J4bberw0ck Theatrical Enterprises:
The part of humanity / the Human Race was played by you, and me, and your families, friends and loved ones. And all of their families, friends and loved ones in turn.
The part of the Robots was played by the State, and the well-meaning instruments of the State.
The Three Laws were played by the system of justice which is supposed to protect us individually from the predations of the State.
The Zeroth Law was played by some as yet unseen legislation, which might come along in the future just as soon as the Robots dream it up - for our own good, of course. Security, for instance. Crime reduction, maybe.
The DNA database was played by all those who believe in the Greatest Good of the Greatest Number. You're a junior recruit, but in illustrious company; many, many floors above you in this GGOTGN office block is the boardroom, where Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao TseTung and every other dictator who just wanted things their way (because it was the right way, of course) sit together at a splendid table and reminisce about the Good Old Days.
If you still can’t see why ID card schemes and universal DNA databases are a huge threat to individuals, while being dressed up as good for society, please say why on here. I'm mystified.
gillian17
24-Feb-08, 10:55
Is GordonBrown/PeterMandelson/NeilKinnock/EU not an anagram of "Come the Glorious Day Brother you will do exactly as I tell you". Perhaps not unless you speak Euronese, or DNAese.
Everybody should get an asbo instead of a birth certificate.:lol:
Highland Laddie
24-Feb-08, 13:40
Everybody should get an asbo instead of a birth certificate.:lol:
lol @ TBH nice one.
Wow. It's like reading another Michael Crichton novel. He could have saved a lot of time and made a lot more money if he just downloaded this thread.
Rheghead its up to you to start the ball rolling.
Post your DNA profile on this site.
Giving it to the Government is exactly the same thing.
In fact if a copper has ever taken a dislike to the way you walk then it probably is in the public domain now.
The only difference being that it will have you name, photograph, National Insurance Number, Passport Number, criminal record, school report, wife's kinky sex habits, council tax payments etc.
And you hide behind a pseudonym, slightly inappropriate, if not hypocritical.
The Y-chromosome results are from an analysis of DNA samples provided by Rheghead.
Location 19a 19b 385a 385b 388 389I 389II 390 391 392 393 426 437 438 439 441 442
Value 14 - 14 14 14 12 28 23 10 11 13 11 16 10 12 17 16
Location 444 445 446 447 448 449 452 454 455 456 458 459a 459b 460 461 462 463
Value 13 11 13 23 20 28 32 11 8 14 14 8 9 10 13 13 21
Location 464a 464b 464c 464d 464e 464f GGAAT1
B07 YCAIIa YCAIIb Y-GATAA10
635 Y-GATAH4.1
Value 13 14 15 16 - - 11 19 21 15 21 21
OK, your turn.:roll:
This is the stuff that the Stasi would have had wet dreams about. We are becoming a true police state under constant surveillance and where everyone from the cradle to the grave will be presumed guilty by default. Pregnancies will be terminated and brilliant minds like Stephen Hawking and Kim Peek will never be allowed to see the light of day because their genetic code is flawed.
Whitewater
25-Feb-08, 00:03
If there was to be a national DNA database the only good thing about it would probably be the medical spin off. A donor source for somebody in need would be easily found. There was some mention a couple of years ago about seting up a data base for the Scottish clans for exactly that purpose.
However, I think that the suggestion of a national DNA base is not a good one. Perhaps the most obvious weakness being the governments control or lack of control in looking after our details. In many organisations now senior management seem to lost the plot about the basic responsibilities of their organisation and too many responsibilities are passed down to poorly trained junior office personnel. I think it was President Trueman who had the notice on his desk "The buck stops here" he had the correct attitude and was man enough to be responsible. Unfortunately our government and too many of our senior managers have forgotten this and do not or are not aware of who is finally responsible.
At the present time there is too much carelesness and lack of responsibility in all areas of our society to contemplate such a thing. The very thought of it makes me shudder with horror.
Highland Laddie
25-Feb-08, 00:07
If there was to be a national DNA database the only good thing about it would probably be the medical spin off. A donor source for somebody in need would be easily found. There was some mention a couple of years ago about seting up a data base for the Scottish clans for exactly that purpose.
However, I think that the suggestion of a national DNA base is not a good one. Perhaps the most obvious weakness being the governments control or lack of control in looking after our details. In many organisations now senior management seem to lost the plot about the basic responsibilities of their organisation and too many responsibilities are passed down to poorly trained junior office personnel. I think it was President Trueman who had the notice on his desk "The buck stops here" he had the correct attitude and was man enough to be responsible. Unfortunately our government and too many of our senior managers have forgotten this and do not or are not aware of who is finally responsible.
At the present time too there is too much carelesness and lack of responsibility in all areas of our society to contemplate such a thing. The very thought of it makes me shudder with horror.
With out present government, not only does the buck not stop there,
it doesn't even slow down on the way past.
I would have voted but one of most obvious options is not present.
DNA records should be:
taken and kept from criminal convicts, and taken from suspects and destroyed after each case.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.