DNA database innocents win landmark European court

[Angel Heart]

DNA database innocents win landmark European court ruling - Telegraph

DNA database innocents win landmark European court ruling
The police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland face having to wipe the profiles of nearly one million innocent people from the DNA database after a landmark European ruling.

By Tom Whitehead and Christopher Hope
Last Updated: 6:24PM GMT 04 Dec 2008

Two men from Sheffield, south Yorkshire, who were previously cleared of criminal charges, have won a major victory after the European Court of Human Rights ruled keeping their DNA on the British police database breached their human rights.

The decision now has far reaching consequences for the police, the Home Office and the British Government, although officials initially refused to say whether all the samples of innocent people on the system will now have to wiped.

The UK database is the biggest of its kind in the world per head of population, with around 4.5 million profiles held, and is seen by the police as a vital crime fighting tool, helping to solve hundreds of high profile murders and rapes.

But more than 850,000 people on the database - including 40,000 children - do not have a criminal record.

Deleting the records could mean that thousands of rapists, murderers and other criminals are not caught.

Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.

Judges in Strasbourg said keeping the DNA of innocent people on a criminal register amounted to discrimination and a breach of the "right to respect for private life" safeguarded by the Human Rights Convention.

One of the victors is Michael Marper, 45, who was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was dropped three months later after the two were reconciled. He had no previous convictions.

More...

 

[KittenKoder]

I would rather have my DNA stay in record even after being proven innocent for one reason: It would still be able to prove my innocence in the future. Just depends on how they tag it I guess.

 

[strollingbones]

I would rather have my DNA stay in record even after being proven innocent for one reason: It would still be able to prove my innocence in the future. Just depends on how they tag it I guess.

but dna can be taken over and over...this is a quandry...one one hand i support the privacy of an individual...on the other hand i could see dna leading to the person who took a kid...dna is nearly always left behind even when you simply kidnap a kid...so if it stopped that and helped solve rapes why not keep a dna bank, is it not similar to finger printing?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

but dna can be taken over and over...this is a quandry...one one hand i support the privacy of an individual...on the other hand i could see dna leading to the person who took a kid...dna is nearly always left behind even when you simply kidnap a kid...so if it stopped that and helped solve rapes why not keep a dna bank, is it not similar to finger printing?

I would, as a responsible member of society, request they keep it. As an Individual I would say destroy it.

 

[Diuretic]

I would, as a responsible member of society, request they keep it. As an Individual I would say destroy it.

And there, if I may say so, is a perfect encapsulation of the quandary.

No, not a breath of sarcasm or cynicism. I mean it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And there, if I may say so, is a perfect encapsulation of the quandary.

No, not a breath of sarcasm or cynicism. I mean it.

Yup, which should win out? The good of the society? Or the right of the individual? I suspect push come to shove I would eventually side with society, as the DNA does NOT , by its existance, do anything to anyone. Unless one can provide evidence of false matches or of poor science the database does nothing simply by existing.

However the logic should not be that having the data base will catch criminals. That assumes guilt. The logic should be that it excludes innocents. If one can keep finger prints one should be able to keep DNA.

 

[Diuretic]

Yup, which should win out? The good of the society? Or the right of the individual? I suspect push come to shove I would eventually side with society, as the DNA does NOT , by its existance, do anything to anyone. Unless one can provide evidence of false matches or of poor science the database does nothing simply by existing.

However the logic should not be that having the data base will catch criminals. That assumes guilt. The logic should be that it excludes innocents. If one can keep finger prints one should be able to keep DNA.

I think you've summed it up pretty damn well. I hope there's a legislator, somewhere, reading this. If not, then cut and paste and forward.

 

[editec]

Why does the government need that information?

Power and control.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why does the government need that information?

Power and control.

Government has a responsibility to protect society. Are you going to argue they have no right to fingerprints as well? Exactly how does one find criminals with out tools like these? Exactly what "right" is violated if you are no criminal? Criminals do NOT have the right to use our own laws and freedoms to avoid being caught. No one that has not committed a crime has any worry about finger prints of DNA in the hands of a just and good government. If the Government is not those things then they are not going to care what you think anyway.

 

[xsited1]

Someone should tell them that a microchip implanted into the forehead or the right hand for ALL European citizens would be much better in the long run. Perhaps Obama can propose that to his European friends.