General Chat

I cant see any reason why not. At least it can solve problems in later life,and if someone has been a naughty,then they know that their DNA is checkable.Any actions they take wont eliminate the DNa left so they will be caught. Am willing tho to listen to arguments I may not have thought of. Shirley

I have been all for DNA being taken at birth, for a long time now. I did voice my opinion on her e a few months ago, I think it was on a thread about Identity Cards. But have to admit after reading a few posts on her, I am wavering a little. As far as proving beyond a doubt if anyone is guilty or not guilty of any crime, I am all for it. I am sure the crime rate would go down eventually. My Son had his DNA taken a couple of years ago. He was around 20 years old. He was not involved in any crime, but to help Police with their inquiries. He asked my advice as it was a voluntary request from the police, and I heartily encouraged him to have it taken. I then gave him a good talking to about the fact that if he was ever in the wrong place at the wrong time, and questioned, hopefully he would be eliminated from police enquiries. But also drummed into him that if ever he did stray from the straight and narrow, to be assured he would be caught sooner rather than later. I personally think if my Son ever did change and go off the straight and narrow, the fact that he has had his DNA on record, it would make him think twice. So yes, I do think it would be a deterrant 'spelling' as far as crime prevention. Jenny.

I don't think we're in so much danger of becoming a Police State as a completely lawless one, where crime detection rates are constantly falling due to criminals getting off on technicalities or convoluted legal argument, ony to re-offend. I'd feel far safer with the knowledge that criminals were being caught and sentenced appropriately due to DNA evidence, and I'd gladly give a DNA sample if it helped in medical research into any of the pernicious ailments I suffer from. I find the case for DNA collection far less of an intrusion into my personal freedom than Council Tax snoopers with the power to insist on entry to my home, so that they can inspect how I've spent my own, already taxed income, on improving it to give myself a more comfortable life. CB >|<

Christine, I understood that is was proposed that the law be changed to allow them to inspect homes, with fines levied if you refuse. CB >|<

most definitely against... for most of the reasons already given - invasion of privacy, danger of mis-use etc etc heartily agree with Gwynne's points Another couple of considerations: (1) WHO PAYS As a scientist who used to be involved in DNA research (for cancer research) I can tell you this technology isn't cheap if you are doing it thoroughly... by that I mean not just a simple fingerprint that matches (say) a dozen or so characteristics (which is expensive enough). You'd really need much more to have it unique to every individual (living & dead) on the planet. BTW its not currently feasible to do a full analysis of every bit of DNA you have, so you couldn't be cloned just from the sequence LOL. (2) Secure handling - how can you ensure the sample stored in your name hasn't been contaminated by someone else's? This is a VERY BIG problem in research. (3) Storage of data. Hate to think what sort of ****-up this govt would make of trying to hold a secure database of this size. Ask me again in 20 years...

I am against it. The Police now seem to have forgotten how to solve crimes without getting DNA evidence. What happened to Police on the Beat stopping crimes before or as they are happening? The only people who should want any info on my DNA would be the Medical Profession and I would strongly object to anyone else having it as a matterof course.

Don't identical twins have the dame DNA? So if one twin committed a crime could they blame it on the other one? As for the original question I would not like to see it routinely done although for already convicted criminals (who I think have given up their human rights) it may be a good thing. I am not against the idea in principle but I am very nervous about how it would be controlled. I think Mandy's concerns are valid and ones that I also have. Claire xx

I'm with Mandy and Rebs on this one. If I was younger and thinking of having children and it was law, I would seriously have to reconsider starting a family.

No for the reasons that Mandy, Gwynne and Vicky state. As for the criminal element maybe they could introduce a law (if they haven't already) where they take your DNA where they have either arrested you or have sufficient evidence to believe you have committed the crime you are being questioned about. This could be kept if it incriminates you for that or any other crime and destroyed if it clears you. Juliexx

I think it is now law that everyone arrested has to have samples taken, and they are not destroyed if you are released without charge.

In cases of medical necessity or criminal acts I would agree. Jenny's idea of a deterrant would be a good consideration but I have to go along with Vicky. Prohibitive costs (and also profits for the company doing it) cause cutting corners, as we well know in some industries, to the detriment of the end product. It would be a phenomenal undertaking and there is too much chance of human error and human greed and unscrupulousness for me to agree. Like other products (?) ie. medicines, foods, will we find in the future that DNA is not as infallible as it is made out to be now? Cigarettes were good for you and so was butter - fashions change and so do ideas. Scientists are only people after all.