quote: He was convicted of seven rapes, and the kidnap, indecent assault and attempted rape of a 10-year-old girl in Birmingham.
quote: Scientists giving evidence for the prosecution said components of DNA matching that of Mr Imiela had been found and told the court the chances of the DNA coming from an unrelated person were one in three million.
quote: The attacker left her tied up and stole her mobile phone from her bag before calling her mother in a move which Mr Dennis said demonstrated "the callousness of the attacker". The victim's mother said she was called on her house phone and a man proceeded to tell her what he had done to he daughter. The court heard how the victim's sister then called the mobile phone and was told her sister was "a bit tied up at the moment".
His defence in the case was that he had been "fitted up" by the police and that he couldn't have committed the rapes because he was gay. He is married, however.
quote:Police also revealed the rapist had previous convictions for a string of robberies - and detectives called for the power to collect DNA from everyone convicted of a criminal offence. Det Supt Colin Murray said if Imiela's genetic fingerprint had been on file, he would have been caught immediately. He said: "Civil liberties groups would tell you that it is not appropriate, but if he had been on a national register we would have caught him straight away."
Last night while listening to the news the policeman mentioned above was interviewed. He stated that this guy would have been caught after his first rape due to DNA left at the scene if his DNA had been on our National Database. The one we have at the moment is only allowed to contain DNA for convicted criminals who agree that they're DNA can stay on the register after its taken. He argued that he felt we needed a better system and even suggested that everyone should be tested at birth.
I agree with this, as surely the only people who would not want it are doing something wrong and are afraid of getting caught. I know it would be a huge undertaking but surely it would help to catch criminals more quickly. I don't understand why it would be a breach of civil rights if it applied to everyone. Surely our priority should be prevention of crime and simplifying the catching of criminals. If a database of DNA did exist surely it would work as a significant deterent.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hate to live in your society. This is a good idea until something you believe in is criminalized. Hope for your sake you never get a real state religion installed that you disagree with.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the ethical difference between a regular fingerprint and a DNA fingerprint?
It might be agrued that DNA evidence is easier to fabricate than a regular fingerprint. But aside from thtis concern, what else is the to worry about?
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm always the first to trot out ye olde Ben Franklin quote, but I agree here. There's no reason to withhold personal stats from the public domain so long as the provisions for transparency are reciprocal.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, now not only does Britain have the highest rate of closed circuit television to keep its citizens safe, you're proposing getting a dna sample from everyone regardless of guilt or innocence,'just in case'?
posted
Would in make a difference to you, Storm, if the already did so with fingerprinting instead of DNA? I don't know for certain but I suspect that this is already done here in the US? I know that I, along with my classmates, was fingerprinted in elementary school (the reason of the time being in case we were abducted) and that those prints are probally on file somewhere... I guess what I am again driving at is that there is no real difference between DNA fingerprinting and digital fingerprints. But people over-react when the scientific buzz words, such as DNA, are thrown around with out really understanding what they mean.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your DNA contains a whole lot of information that tells a whole lot more about you than simply a fingerprint would. Imagine a database where everyone's DNA information was on file. Imagine what an unscrupulous person could do with this information.
Right now such a person might try to sell it to insurance companies. They could refuse insurance to anyone who has any one of a hundred markers for tendencies to develop various diseases.
As time goes on, who knows what other secrets of DNA might be unlocked. Suppose there *is* a gene for a tendency toward homosexuality, or even a higher likelihood to develop a mental illness, or a genetic propensity for obesity. This could lead to many unfair discriminatory practices if the information were available to the general public.
Personally, I think it's too early to create a national NDA database unless there are strict limitations.
One limitation I could see that might work is to limit the information collected to specific markers that identify the person but give no other specifics. I don't know if this is possible, but if it is then maybe such a database could work.
What are the arguements against a national fingerprint database? I'm sure one has been proposed but not mandated. I'm sure the arguments that prevented that should hold true for a DNA registry too.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
or maybe you could go further than that and predict there might be an Antons Key in a gene! lol but if DNA gets in the wrong hands..thats illegal whats stopping them from doing other illegal things like genetic engineering on humans...clones...anything....it is all a very possible danger....
Posts: 35 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, that's not how DNA fingerprinting works, they don't keep your code on file. They use a special kind of enzyme to cut it into small pieces at specific sequences and then organize them in order of weight. Everyone has these sequences in slightly different places so the cuts happen in different places and you get a distinctive banding pattern. You cannot, however, tell what information is on each band. That's also why there's still some degree of error, it's possible that the pattern from two different people will be so similar you won't really be able to tell them apart and there's no way to delve deeper and check.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am hesitant to embrace a DNA database of all citizens for some of the reasons Karl listed.
Heck, I wasn't even particularly thrilled when I had to be fingerprinted lately. I know that it is for a good reason though - the BATF now requires fingerprinting and photographs (I wouldn't be surprised if they run a background check on me when they get all my info) of people authorized to accept explosives, which I do at work.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that I, along with my classmates, was fingerprinted in elementary school (the reason of the time being in case we were abducted) and that those prints are probally on file somewhere...
When kids are fingerprinted for ID kits, the company doesn't keep a record. The fingerprints are just for the parent to have if the kid is missing. That's the way it is now, at least, and should be.
DNA is considered infallible now, but the age of framing people with genetic material can't be far behind us. But O.J. was acquitted after all.
I think it might be good to keep a private sample of your DNA (if you plan on committing a crime) so that your sample can't be switched by the cops.
Anyway, I don't think anyone would object to universal DNA sampling if they truly believed that it would only be used by law enforcement in an unbiased search for the truth. But since the Patriot Act, unh uh. I don't think so.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:surely the only people who would not want it are doing something wrong and are afraid of getting caught.
I don't want it, and I haven't done anything wrong, and I'm not afraid of getting caught.
Your statement isn't much different from, "If he was innocent, he'd take the stand." In the U.S. we have a whole right against self-incrimination that contradicts this attitude. Britain also has a right against self-incrimination.
quote:Surely our priority should be prevention of crime and simplifying the catching of criminals.
As a society, the U.S. has decided that our priority is not catching criminals but rather preserving individual rights. I'm sure Britain has made the same decision, even if the exact placement of the lines is diferent.
posted
DNA testing is a far cry from being considered infallible. There have been several cases, in Canada at least, where people who were convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence have been found innocent by using more modern techniques. People are starting to realize that there are a lot of flaws with the methods we used to use, which means it's quite likely that there are flaws in the methods we currently use.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone else see the movie GATTACA? It is a futuristic movie with a very Orwellian feel where those with substandard DNA are treated like second class citizens, only fit to perform menial (sp?) jobs and positions. While I don't think that we would ever go that far, or even as far as Karl suggests, you have a valid concern.
The hottly contended biological positoin is that enviornmental factors as well as genetic predispostions contribute to the likeliness of disease. So as far as the insurence viewpoint... though I could see it happening, it would be a kind of illogical. But I could see insurance companies trying to use that angle to suck more money from us. And I don't see any reason why the actual DNA fingerprint couldn't be limited to sections of DNA that are of no relavince. It is beleived that the vast majority of DNA is so called "junk DNA" in that it apears not to code for anyting in particular.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a legal standpoint, I can see where arguing that DNA evidence is fallible can be beneficial. However from a scientific standpoint I have to say that it simply isn't true. Current methods can be considered to be extremely accurate. And by refining methods they are getting more so everyday. Completion of the Human Genome project has aided in identifying more and more specific area of human DNA so it is posible to compare specific areas as oposed to a generalized comparison as Bob said above. And yet, whatever my belief in DNA fingerprintings solidness I have to say also that I would never convict someone solely on it's merits. It would be relativly easy to plant DNA evidence. I mean all it takes is a few hairs. At least with regular fingerprinting the person must have physical contact with the item the prints are lifted from. Though this too is not impossible to manipulate.
So in either case, prints are only a clue, not necesserily evidence that a conviction shold rest upon.
posted
I must admit I thought that DNA testing was a more exact art these days than is obviously is from some of your comments. I also thought our DNA was unique and although I knew there'd been problems in the past with using it as evidence I was under the impression that improved methods had been developed.
EDIT: cross posted with PaladinVirtue who assures us it is more accurate these days.
I do realise there is potential for misusing the system but wasn't suggesting it being a free-for-all with anyone being able to access the information. It would obviously need safeguards to prevent misuse.
As for the police misusing it - yeah I suppose the potentials there - but IMO - which may be very naive - I tend to hope the majority of law enforcement personnel are honest. I know the ones I know personally I feel I could trust.
I still think its a option which is worth considering - especially if there is a way of safeguarding it from misuse.
There's no way to see what you actual code is. When the bands get sorted by mass they go all out of sequence, you have no idea where in the genome that band came from, let alone what's on it. And we already use the "junk" DNA in the analysis. The vast majority of it are in the form of SINEs and LINEs which are stretches of DNA that have the ability to duplicate themselves seemingly at random throughout your genome. They don't seem to do anything, but everyone has different numbers and has them in different places, but the code is more or less conserved between individuals. So if you set your cuts to happen within these "junk" fragments you generate your distinct bands because the distance between on S(L)INE and the next is going to be different in every person.
I have no idea if I'm being clear or not. Does this make any sense to anyone?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paladin, the methods that were current 20 years ago were also considered to be very accurate. Turned out they weren't. Which is way it's considered fallible now. We still don't fully know what we're doing, there's no reason to assume that this is an exact science. Working with DNA is a long nightmare of trial and error.
What ways are more specific than PCR amplified RFLP? I suppose you could sequence part of the DNA used as evidence and design a probe based on that and use that to test the subject, but using a probe in this manner is probably a lot more likely to produce a false positive. It's really hard to design a good probe for a system this large that still has a reasonable stringency.
Edit: The sequencing of the human genome has increased our understanding of a lot of things, Paladin. And you're right, rather than looking at the whole mess of DNA we can focus our efforts on areas that tend to have a high degree of variability between subjects. The point I'm trying to get across though, is that working with DNA is not the nice little picture the media and scientists applying for grants like to make it out to be.
[ March 05, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, while I have to admit I have don't work with DNA specifically, I have knowledge of the field. I think that maybe your information is a little bit out of date. This I do know for certain. It IS possible to look at specific piece of DNA. Enzymes can cut DNA at specific places. And we are able to sequence parts of the DNA we isolate. Some of these areas are common, some are highly specific. When comparing many of these pieces, we get a picture a unique person becasue no-one is identical in all areas. And we will get an ever increaseing picture of the human genome as more research is done.
Yes i can totally agree with your last staement...love to debate more but my cat is drugged so have to go..
quote: surely the only people who would not want it are doing something wrong and are afraid of getting caught.
You might also be a person who doesn't have absolute faith in the goverment to never abuse such a database. Like me! Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do get your point mr-porteiro-head. I actually have very little faith in the current government in the UK.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naw, mph. You're not really against it because you distrust the government. I'm sure it's just because you don't really understand the technology. You're just over reacting. Uncle Sugar is your friend! Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paladin, you’re both right and wrong. But first off, let me assure you that you can talk to me in specifics and I will understand.
I’m not going to dispute what you’re saying, you’re basically reiterating the probe scenario I mentioned early. But the big mistake you’re making is in assuming that you get complete, undamaged DNA to work with from the crime scene. Sometimes you’re lucky and you do. Most of the time the ideal situation that occurs in the lab just isn’t possible.
Since you’re gone, I’ll leave it at that. I don’t think you’d sequence the DNA you cut free using restriction enzymes, that’s not efficient and actually has a higher degree of variability than you seem to think it does. You can’t just take the knowledge you got from your molecular bio classes for designing plasmids, cosmids, YACs or even HACs and apply it directly to forensics because your sample sizes dwarf the ones you’re dealing with in those situations, and the condition of the DNA you’re working with is terrible. Then it also comes down to cost and time. It's pretty darn cheap and fast to whip up an RFLP, much more expensive and time consuming to sequence the DNA, design the probe and test the subject and then rinse and repeat to refine your search.
posted
You have little faith in your government and you want to give it more power? I must admit I do not quite follow your train of thought... Also, police, court, and government abuses are widespread in the US, although many are hushed up as much as possible.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danzig -- I cannot see this train of thought. Was it me that you were talking about? I wasn't speaking in favor of a national DNA database.
I think that the federal government has *way* overstepped its constitutionally-defined bounds on several fronts. And it seems that they foul at least half the time they stick their noses in anything. I don't like the idea of giving the government more power than it already has.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph - I was speaking to cochick, not you. Sorry for the confusion. Actually I am probably the closest thing to an anarchist on Hatrack. Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did say current government in the UK - call me an idealist if you like but I hope things will imrove in the future. Getting rid of Blair would be a major step in the right direction.
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't see where the issue is concerning taking DNA samples on birth and keeping them on record. Wouldn't the database of DNA just be used to find any and all suspects who fit the DNA sample found on the crime scene. If nothing else it would allow suspects to be identified much faster. I mean even now a DNA sample isn't enough to get a person convicted. There is such a thing as motive, oppurtunity, and things of that nature.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once you have served your sentence or paid your fine, you are supposed to be free. This is not the first abridgement of the human rights of convicts, but it seems that it will be a further one if it is not already.
cochick - Sorry. I think a better word than government would be administration. I do not trust my current administration (Bush) or my government (the status quo / hypocracy). The entire system is corrupted.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah - buts thats the US - in the UK we're not that bad
EDIT: Comes from not having a constitution - most of our laws are ancient and outdated - Hey its still legal to shoot someone with a bow and arrow if they're caught climbing over the walls of the city.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
