there will always be hard core crims/speeders who will do what they will regardless, but honestly, no one wants a speeding fine! cameras catch out 'strangers' to the area, not locals so much.

 

true there is room for abuse, but nothing that legislation couldnt deal with. in all, its a positive step foreward.

 

 

Well there you go you've just said there will always be exceptions, that nullifies your arguement, how big is that exception 5% 40% 100% of people who commit crimes? You don't know so your arguement that it will dissued people from committing crime starts to fall apart

I also don't believe your assertation DNA solves three times as much crime, especially when rape the crime where most DNA evidence is used only brings about a 5% conviction rate of all those charged.

 

And many people speed down roads they know that a speed camera is on

 

thats a fact that was revealed on panorama, three times as many crimes are solved using dna then without. that alone is compelling enough for any law abiding citizens to consider the database as a good thing.

 

only idiots speed <_<

Well there you go you've just said there will always be exceptions, that nullifies your arguement, how big is that exception 5% 40% 100% of people who commit crimes? You don't know so your arguement that it will dissued people from committing crime starts to fall apart

 

how do you equate that?

 

the point is that whilst yes there will always be people who commit crimes regardless of the consequences, the majority of crimes wouldnt be committed IF the perpetrators KNEW that the chances of getting caught were very high! wheres the contradiction in that?

The majority of crimes are impulsive with no regard for the consequences, very few are planned and when the risk of getting caught increases people tend to be more vicious in the lenghts they'll go to avoid being caught

The majority of crimes are impulsive with no regard for the consequences, very few are planned and when the risk of getting caught increases people tend to be more vicious in the lenghts they'll go to avoid being caught

 

lol... your case is seriously floundering now!

 

take that to its logical conclusion and youll be advocating NOT arresting anybody ever because they 'might get nastier'...lol.

 

nah.... crimes are committed because people think they can get away with it, if they thought that theyd be caught most wouldnt commit the crime.

in most cases people couldnt be convicted on dna alone, so whilst it is possible to wrongly accuse someone its highly improbable that they would actually be sent down, besides, that already goes on under the current system. id argue that dna would make it more IMPROBABLE that people would be wrongly accused.

 

What do you mean "most cases"? For the reasons given by various people in this thread, nobody should be convicted on DNA alone.

oh lord...

 

many criminals only undertake crimes because they believe they can get away with it, if their chances of getting away with it were notably (and 3 times the prosecution rate IS notably more) reduced then i suspect that alot of crimes just wouldnt be committed.

 

would YOU speed in a car down a road where you KNOW a speed camera WILL catch you?...

 

Let's look at two of the most serious crimes.

 

The clear-up rate for murder is high and has been for a very long time. So why do murders still happen when most murderers are convicted?

 

In the majority of rape cases the alleged victim makes an allegation against a named individual. It is accepted by both sides that they had sex. The only issue is whether the alleged victim consented. DNA cannot make any contribution to those cases.

Let's look at two of the most serious crimes.

 

The clear-up rate for murder is high and has been for a very long time. So why do murders still happen when most murderers are convicted?

 

In the majority of rape cases the alleged victim makes an allegation against a named individual. It is accepted by both sides that they had sex. The only issue is whether the alleged victim consented. DNA cannot make any contribution to those cases.

 

im not so sure that the conviction rate for murders IS higher then it has been... theres loads of current killings (kids mainly in gang wars) that arnt being solved, plus the murder rate is higher then previous. the problem is with murder that its often a crime of passion, committed in the heat of the moment, so reason goes out of the window.

 

rape is one of the worst crimes and the conviction rate is painfully low. any tool that might increase the conviction rate must be a good thing. true... there will always be a grey area between consent or not, but its now an offence to have sex with someone who is too drunk/high to consent! plus thats only one area of 'rape crime', what about the other when the crimes committed in an obvious place where no consent would ever be given...like in an alley by a stranger? or by a stranger in someones house? wouldnt dna prove that person was there?..

 

of course there are nits to pick with this topic, you can go around in circles for ages nit picking minor details, but the facts are still there (which convinces me) that dna technology increases by threefold the number of convictions.... if anyone can prove to me that this is a BAD thing then ill listen! :lol:

im not so sure that the conviction rate for murders IS higher then it has been... theres loads of current killings (kids mainly in gang wars) that arnt being solved, plus the murder rate is higher then previous. the problem is with murder that its often a crime of passion, committed in the heat of the moment, so reason goes out of the window.

 

rape is one of the worst crimes and the conviction rate is painfully low. any tool that might increase the conviction rate must be a good thing. true... there will always be a grey area between consent or not, but its now an offence to have sex with someone who is too drunk/high to consent! plus thats only one area of 'rape crime', what about the other when the crimes committed in an obvious place where no consent would ever be given...like in an alley by a stranger? or by a stranger in someones house? wouldnt dna prove that person was there?..

 

of course there are nits to pick with this topic, you can go around in circles for ages nit picking minor details, but the facts are still there (which convinces me) that dna technology increases by threefold the number of convictions.... if anyone can prove to me that this is a BAD thing then ill listen! :lol:

 

Yet it hasn't increased rape convictions......only proven sex occured

 

Yet it hasn't increased rape convictions......only proven sex occurred

 

not according to 'panorama'.

 

15% conviction rate without dna technology, 45% conviction rate with dna technology... sorry, either way thats a pretty impressive reason to use dna. crimes like burglary and child molestation, would be far easier to prove and therefore (as they are pre-meditated and not 'in the heat of the moment, like murder) must be a deterant to anyone contemplating it.

not according to 'panorama'.

 

15% conviction rate without dna technology, 45% conviction rate with dna technology... sorry, either way thats a pretty impressive reason to use dna. crimes like burglary and child molestation, would be far easier to prove and therefore (as they are pre-meditated and not 'in the heat of the moment, like murder) must be a deterant to anyone contemplating it.

 

The vast majority of child molestation cases go unreported though mate, you know that, mainly because they happen in the family home and are committed by a family member or friend.. As for burglary, I dont buy that DNA can do a damn thing to solve those, any smart burglar could wear a ski mask and latex gloves...

 

And I really dunno where Panorama gets its figures from about rape, the facts are that only one in 20 cases of rape result in a conviction, with or without DNA evidence, and this is according to womens' groups....

 

Nope, still aint buying it... And I still say that I shouldn't have to submit to anything to prove myself innocent and have nothing to hide, it's up to them to prove I'm guilty.... and do have something to hide.... And if you dont believe that, then you dont believe in the rule of law that says "innocent until proven guilty"....

 

Only people who have actually committed a criminal offence should be put on a permanent DNA database. As for those who are suspected, then a court order should be sought to compel a person to give a DNA sample and only then can it be taken, and if a person is eliminated from the enquiry, then that sample should be destroyed, thus protecting the innocent person's rights....

Only people who have actually committed a criminal offence should be put on a permanent DNA database. As for those who are suspected, then a court order should be sought to compel a person to give a DNA sample and only then can it be taken, and if a person is eliminated from the enquiry, then that sample should be destroyed, thus protecting the innocent person's rights....

 

thats all well and good, but when NEW criminals embark on a life of crime they will not be on the database until caught! if they were on from birth then theyd be caught a whole lot sooner!

 

the examples that panorama highlighted made this case perfectly. those people could have easily gone on to kill more and more...

 

if you are innocent then you have nowt to fear. sorry m8, but as i see it the positives far outweigh the negatives.

thats all well and good, but when NEW criminals embark on a life of crime they will not be on the database until caught! if they were on from birth then theyd be caught a whole lot sooner!

 

the examples that panorama highlighted made this case perfectly. those people could have easily gone on to kill more and more...

 

if you are innocent then you have nowt to fear. sorry m8, but as i see it the positives far outweigh the negatives.

 

And, like I said, if a suspect comes into the police radar, then they can get a court order to take a sample if they have reasonable grounds, that's the way it works in an open, democratic society, you gather your evidence, question suspects, then you can talk about DNA tests, monitoring phones and emails, but not before... You got summat against the rule of law??? It's managed to serve Britain well enough since the sodding Magna Carta mate, even Nazi war criminals and fifth columnists got a fair trial..... Some things are just fundamental, and this is one of them....

i can see that we are not going to agree on this one m8, neither of us are convincing the other of their point.

 

draw?....lol

The t**t who burgled my house was found through DNA - window man found a spot of blood on window he climbed through.

 

I wouldn't mind my DNA being kept on file ..... enough other stuff is kept about me all over the place.

 

But then I have no intention of robbing / murdering anyone

 

 

The t**t who burgled my house was found through DNA - window man found a spot of blood on window he climbed through.

 

I wouldn't mind my DNA being kept on file ..... enough other stuff is kept about me all over the place.

 

But then I have no intention of robbing / murdering anyone

 

:cheer:

The t**t who burgled my house was found through DNA - window man found a spot of blood on window he climbed through.

Presumably this was not the first house he had burgled though... The vast majority of burglaries (and crimes in general actually...) are committed by REPEAT offenders... As I have stated, I have NO problems with a DNA database for convicted criminals, as far as I'm concerned they lost the rights to a benefit of the doubt when they committed a criminal act....

 

And if YOU want to volunteer your DNA, well, that's up to you, that's your prerogative, it should by MY prerogative to not be forced to surrender my DNA just because the Govt says so..... -_-

 

And if YOU want to volunteer your DNA, well, that's up to you, that's your prerogative, it should by MY prerogative to not be forced to surrender my DNA just because the Govt says so..... -_-

 

you come across as a petulant kid m8 ... "youre not having my dna so there"...

 

but by ONLY dna'ing convicted criminals you will be missing all of them who start out, theyll be dna 'invisible' until they are caught by which time they would have caused havok, bringing misery to thousands of people... most of which could have been prevented if the scum had been caught earlier.

Presumably this was not the first house he had burgled though... The vast majority of burglaries (and crimes in general actually...) are committed by REPEAT offenders... As I have stated, I have NO problems with a DNA database for convicted criminals, as far as I'm concerned they lost the rights to a benefit of the doubt when they committed a criminal act....

 

It wasn't, and the police 'knew' who it was as he had a distinctive 'MO' but needed proof. BUT the police failed to do more than say oh dear. It was window replacement man who found the blood (he got there before police)

 

 

 

It wasn't, and the police 'knew' who it was as he had a distinctive 'MO' but needed proof. BUT the police failed to do more than say oh dear. It was window replacement man who found the blood (he got there before police)

 

 

So he was known to police and obviously had some sort of conviction, so they must have had his dna on file