What would you do?

[expat]

I've read all the arguments from both sides & still haven't made my mind up on this. Note that I haven't cast my vote as there is no "Don't know" option.

I am not in principle against a DNA data base, but it should be absolutely all or nothing.

That was the point I made earlier. However I realise that it could be planted & used against you. The same goes for any personal information held on a government database. I don't trust government departments to do anything right.

Well wouldn't the records just be the scans of the DNA or the numbers relevant to each section of DNA? If it was just the output from processing DNA and no actual substance being withheld then I don't see it being used against you or planted, which was something I did think of but I don't see it being a problem.

Planting DNA would be relatively easy. All I need is a single strand of your hair for example. You DNA is on file as you pointed out and your hair (DNA) was at the crime scene. As DNA is now the holly grail of conviction, you are convicted. Your alibi is worthless because of crime scene evidence.

Matt

[machineman9]

I've read all the arguments from both sides & still haven't made my mind up on this. Note that I haven't cast my vote as there is no "Don't know" option.

I am not in principle against a DNA data base, but it should be absolutely all or nothing.

That was the point I made earlier. However I realise that it could be planted & used against you. The same goes for any personal information held on a government database. I don't trust government departments to do anything right.

Well wouldn't the records just be the scans of the DNA or the numbers relevant to each section of DNA? If it was just the output from processing DNA and no actual substance being withheld then I don't see it being used against you or planted, which was something I did think of but I don't see it being a problem.

Planting DNA would be relatively easy. All I need is a single strand of your hair for example. You DNA is on file as you pointed out and your hair (DNA) was at the crime scene. As DNA is now the holly grail of conviction, you are convicted. Your alibi is worthless because of crime scene evidence.

Matt

Well I'd like to think they base it on more than just DNA. I doubt they would put down your dog because you had dog fur on you and were found dead somewhere. They should still do a proper court case, the DNA would just indicate who is most likely to have been involved. An alibi if proven right should still count. You might know the person who was killed and maybe you went out the night before and somehow your hair got onto their jacket but you were in Hawaii the morning after, they should still be able to think that you weren't involved even though DNA was found.

[JBaymore]

Despite this, if I wish to visit the USA my fingerprints & other personal information will be taken by the Immigration Service & added to the US Government database. This is being done in the name of national security. The records are permanent & will not be removed. There is no way of knowing who will be allowed access to my personal information.

I do precisely the same thing every time I enter Japan.... fingerprints on both hands and a digital photograph.  Seems prefectly reasonable that a country is allowed to control its borders.  Doesn't bother me one iota other than having to wait in a line when I am exhausted and jetlagged.

Just because, over time, technology changes from the old "Mark I Eyeball" on the paper documents to the ability to electronically scan RFID stuff implanted in passports (which now is also done routinely when I travel) does not change the INTENT of the actions.  It just (hopefully) improves the process in many ways.

best,

................john

[JBaymore]

Well I'd like to think they base it on more than just DNA. I doubt they would put down your dog because you had dog fur on you and were found dead somewhere. They should still do a proper court case, the DNA would just indicate who is most likely to have been involved. An alibi if proven right should still count. You might know the person who was killed and maybe you went out the night before and somehow your hair got onto their jacket but you were in Hawaii the morning after, they should still be able to think that you weren't involved even though DNA was found.

Don"t know the legal system in Germany, but likey the DNA evidence will just be part of a large body of overall evidence that will be analyzed.  Then a judge or jury (or both) will decide based on that BODY of evidence if the person in question is guilty. 

But remember that DNA evidence is a VERY powerful tool at identifying a particular suspect...and will count heavily.  The JURY or judge will decide if the nature of the DNA source on the victim could have been "casual" (your dog hair example) and happend in some other manner, or have tied the suspect to the crime.

best,

....................john

[a1]

I would do it.

I can't really see the edvidence being used against me later on though. There is always the rare cast where your DNA is on some crime scene.

What bothers me a bit is that how strongly DNA is being used in court and how no one looks at anything else expect DNA. So if witht he rare case where my DNA is accidentally found at a crime scene I did not comit I would have a big problem on my hands.

[Fozzer]

..the problem, as I see it, is that neither the Judge, or the Jury, or the average Man-in-the-street has any idea whatsoever, what "DNA" is, and what its all about... ::)...

...which means that the "Experts" in "DNA" can either make a mistake, or intentionally pull the wool over the Judge and Jury's eyes, to make their own expert point...

...no-one will understand it, or be any the wiser...!

They will take the "Experts" opinion that your are definitely guilty, without a shadow of doubt...

(...because there is no way of disproving their "Expert" findings).. ...

..and you therefore, my friend, guilty, or not, will therefore be found guilty of the dastardly crime, and will be hung by the neck until you are dead... ...!

Problem solved!... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]....Next case, please... ..!

Paul...I love "Experts"...with a vengeance!.... ...!

"DNA" findings are a crafty way of effortless, and quickly "solving" cases, with little or no dispute!......trust me......!

[Hagar]

..the problem, as I see it, is that neither the Judge, or the Jury, or the average Man-in-the-street has any idea whatsoever, what "DNA" is, and what its all about... ::)...

...which means that the "Experts" in "DNA" can either make a mistake, or intentionally pull the wool over the Judge and Jury's eyes, to make their own expert point...

...no-one will understand it, or be any the wiser...!

They will take the "Experts" opinion that your are definitely guilty, without a shadow of doubt...

(...because there is no way of disproving their "Expert" findings).. ...

..and you therefore, my friend, guilty, or not, will therefore be found guilty of the dastardly crime, and will be hung by the neck until you are dead... ...!

Problem solved!... [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]....Next case, please... ..!

Paul...I love "Experts"...with a vengeance!.... ...!

"DNA" findings are a crafty way of effortless, and quickly "solving" cases, with little or no dispute!......trust me......!

There you have it in a nutshell.

[JBaymore]

Slophistic argument.  The same can be said for the testimony of an "expert" in ANY field.  And the testimony of such experts have always been weighed as "expert"...... because that is why theyu are brought in.

So DNA experts are no differnt than any other expert.

In the end your fate depends on the quality of the lawyers you hire, the quality of the prosecutor, and the intelligence of the jurors.  All tempered by the judge.

Is the system perfect.... nope.

You want perfect....... keep looking.

best,

...............john

[Hagar]

[quote]Slophistic argument.

[C]

I'm all up for a DNA data base to be set up. Don't do anything wrong and you won't get caught. It has lead to people being prosecuted for past crimes just because the DNA matched 2 cases.

Join the RAF and they'll take it anyway when you join, just in case it's required for pathology reasons later on.

Can't see a problem with a national database myself.

[Fozzer]

I can remember the good-old-days, when all that was known about my Mum, my Dad, and me, was our National Insurance Number.
Other than that, we were completely invisible to the rest of the World...Which was nice!... ...!

..Now, in the age of Computers and the Internet; everyone and his Dog, is aware of all our most intimate details, broadcast World-wide for anyone and everyone to browse at will, whether we wish it, or not!... ...!

So much for today's anonymity!... ...!

Paul.... ...!

[CD.]

DNA can be a very helpful tool in the fight against crime.. but shouldn'tbe used as the sole proof/evidence.
It should only be used as a backup for "doubtful" conviction, ie if a judge/jury can't decide if a defendant is guilty but the evidence is circumstantial.. but needs that final definitive bit to ensure the conviction.
In a nutshell, DNA shouldn't be used to convict, more as a "proof" within the trial itself.

If that makes sense... 

[machineman9]

[quote]DNA can be a very helpful tool in the fight against crime.. but shouldn'tbe used as the sole proof/evidence.
It should only be used as a backup for "doubtful" conviction, ie if a judge/jury can't decide if a defendant is guilty but the evidence is circumstantial.. but needs that final definitive bit to ensure the conviction.
In a nutshell, DNA shouldn't be used to convict, more as a "proof" within the trial itself.

If that makes sense...

[Hagar]

This might change the credibility of DNA evidence. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/17/tech/main5248133.shtml

[WebbPA]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.  Quoted heavily (by me) as the American sheeple supported or stood idly by as the Patriot Act repealed the first, fourth and sixth amendments to our constitution.

In other words, no.