I hate to say this - but Trust the Police

After reading various books from coppers on the front line, my own conclusion is that the copper on the ground knows who the trouble makers are. There should be an option for such officers to make a judgement call and keep particular peoples DNA on the database for six years or so.

The police on the ground need to be trusted ... but at the same time the public needs to be protected from bent coppers that run around without ID numbers on their shoulders, harass photographers, make the law up as they go along, etc. Hmmm.... on second thoughts...

I suppose that there could be a test ... someone brought in to the station once in a year doesn't have their DNA kept, but if they've been in within a 12 month previously, this trips their DNA retention for a longer period.

The more often the cop shop sees you, the longer your DNA gets kept.

Treat people like criminals and you make criminals

If you treat people like criminals they are more likely to become criminals. They have less to lose, the difference in their lives between being honest and decent and a criminal is not there.

You criminalize them.

The Jill Dando Institute paper can be summed up as follows:

a) Do innocent people offend the same as small time criminals?, they claim yes.

b) Are small time criminals from the set of ALL criminals? Yes.

c) If I take a set of crime statistics calculated for ALL criminals including petty criminals, if a is true and b is true, then I can use this when referring to innocent people? They claim yes.

d) That these crimes would all have been solved by DNA samples.

Ergo, 50%+ of innocent people commit crimes within the next 6 years of them being fingerprinted and DNAd and deleting the DNA means they escape charge.

a) is not true. They used a table (Page 31) which shows no correlation between those released-with-a-caution and those released-with-a non-custodial-sentence (46 vs 35). If the 2 closest categories don't correlate then how can they claim it is the same as a third category that is very different? (those released with no further action)? To get that third group to correlate, they AVERAGED the other 2 groups. There is no correlation between innocent and cautiioned, no correlation between innocent and non-custodial-sentence group, but if we average them out for these chosen 3 years, we get a number we can correlate.!!!???

This is Jacqui Science.

If you tracked people for 30 months and got 28 crimes, and you tracked a different group for 42 months and got 50 crimes, if you then tracked a third group for 54 months, would you expect a larger or smaller number than 50? You would expect a larger number, yet the table shows a smaller number.... i.e. sample size is insufficient and you simply are measuring random noise.

b) is true, but small time criminals don't re-offend as much as hardened ones, which is why the judges put the hard cases in jail.

c) Is false.

d) is false, did the youth caught doing drugs get caught because of his DNA, or because he was doing drugs!

----------------------------

IMHO,

If I take a group of people, arrest them, take their DNA and check it and check them for all previous unsolved crimes, then find I cannot charge them with ANYTHING and release them.

Then their natural re-offender rate would be the same or less than for the population as a whole for those DNA crimes. Because the population of innocent people hasn't been tested for DNA and he has and found not to match any previous crimes.

Innocent people don't offend as much as petty criminals, and certainly not as much as hardened criminals. The 50% claim is completely bogus.

If you treat people like criminals you make them into criminals. See USA for an example of how you criminalize a large section of the population.

If a criminal attacks an old lady, when they arrest them they take the DNA and test it against the scene of crime DNA. So in the BBC case he would be found guilty and this is not an argument for retention, it is to simply cloud the matter.

If a rozzer pulls a person with no criminal record off the street and takes their DNA, then releases them without any charge, are you really saying that there is a 50% chance they will commit a crime in the next 6 years???? Really?

seems dangerous to me

So let's get this straight.

DNA matching is not a perfect science - last I heard was a 1 in a billion chance of a match for any given person on a DNA sample, which means for any given sample there is approx 6 people in world who will match it.

Fingerprints are far far worse.

Right, so let's assume that our overlords have their way and there is a UK-wide database of DNA and fingerprints with only a small number of people missing or with erroneous entries (because it will never be a perfect database).

So a crime is committed, they pick up some DNA and go and arrest all the people who match (usually just one match for the population of the UK).

A jury is surely going to feel compelled to convict on this evidence alone - but it is flawed, and the wrong person could get sent down.

For fingerprints, they will end up with loads of people who match - much better just to have actual crims on the database then surely?

Damien Green has 50% chance of....

Having been arrested Damien Green MP, has a 50% chance of going on to commit a Homicide, deal drugs, knife crime, robbery, rape, within the next 6 years, according to that report.

The same as a hardened criminal sent to jail for rape has a 50% chance of committing a crime within 6 years of being released from jail, again according to this report.

Is there a difference between Jill Dando and Jill Dando's killer in Jacqui Smiths mind? Does Alan Johnson really have to commit all the same mistakes as Jacqui Smith simply because she was also from the Labour party? Why?

The BIG lie

Maybe I can make it as clear as day why I dislike this deception so much.

Suppose the re-offender rates within 6 years from a date:

Hardened criminals, who were previously in prison 800 per 1000

Petty, criminals prosecuted but not sent to prison 80 per 1000

Innocent people 40 per 1000

Clearly 40 is not 800, so I discard the people sent to prison, claiming that their prison time makes it difficult to determine the 6 years to count.

But 40 is not 80, so I split the petty criminal group into 2 parts, people given a caution and people given a non custodial sentence, say 35 and 45.

I then average 35 and 45 and get 40, HAH the SAME as innocent people!

So, if criminals commit (800+80)/(1000+1000) = 44% reoffender rate, then it follows that innocent people have a 44% offender rate!

Not, they had a 4% offender rate, I played with the numbers in the same way as Jill Dando man to deceive.

If it did not fit, I would split them into 3 groups, or 4 groups and average those.

That paper needs to go through the office of government statistics, so that they can explain the statistical deceptions here. The straw man arguments and false dichotomies aside.

Human Rights

Isn't being the victim of crime a far worse breach of my human rights that having my details stored on a (relatively) secure, automated and tightly controlled computer system?

If the DNADB can act as an effective deterrent (and why wouldn't it - would you offend if you knew your DNA could be used to prove you were at the scene?), even a little, I'm all for unlimited retention and compulsory sampling of *all* British Citizens.

(untitled)

Mr S was caught committing a crime (actually an FPN and 2 cautions) in spite of having his details removed. So no need to retain DNA has been demonstrated.

Or have the cops defied the court ruling and kept the DNA? If so, how did that help them catch Mr S?

@ Sir Adam-All (and anyone else who cares)

"Sheriff??? WTF???"

Yes, in Scotland the equivalent of a magistrate is a sheriff, the equivalent of the CPS is the Procurator Fiscal.

Back to the subject -

Has no one told these people that innocent people are exactly that - innocent? So they not only HAVEN'T done anything, there is no proof that they WILL. And how can you have a 'consultation' on whether or not the government should obey the law? The European COURT, not the parliament, told Jacqboot in no uncertain terms what had to be done, and now they're just going "La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la..."

First ...

... they came for opinions, and I was not an opinion, so I said nothing...

@Catkins, AC

@Catkins:

In my opinion it's an acceptable risk. I suspect that in yours, it isn't. I'd rather have a 1% increase false positive rate and 10% increase in true positives than a 0% increase in both.

@AC:

1) Yes it would be great if we could distinguish between the innocent people and the criminals-to-be and only store the DNA of the latter, but we can't. We're all *potential* criminals - not to be confused with *liikely* criminals. I'd like to put your records on the DB too, but it doesn't mean I think you're a rapist.

2) We don't live in a utopian society filled with wonderful happy good hearted people. Sure, it's great to think that if the big bad government would only trust us we'd be good little boys and girls and never do anything naughty. I hate to disappoint you, but that's just not going to happen.

"I'm guessing you're a rapist? Am I right? You like to rape the girlies?"

Gee, that's friendly. There are plenty of ways of using DNA to help with the solving of crimes. Yes it has a bad reputation as a silver bullet and I don't deny that there have been terrible cases of blinkered bobbies jumping to conclusions but it can be sensibly used to add evidence to pretty much any crime where contact or location are important.

@both of you

The difference in opinion has a lot to do with the focus on the individual cases. IMO, they aren't hugely relevant. It doesn't mean I don't feel for the guy who gets wrongfully convicted, but in the grand scheme of things I don't *really* care, neither do the government, and neither should they. Their primary concern (in theory at least, after getting re-elected and looking like a bunch of pricks etc) should be to provide the solution which gives the greatest quality of life to the greatest number of people. Something they've so far been pretty crap at.

@McHaggis

@"In my opinion it's an acceptable risk."

Lets have a vote. As per my last sentence, NuLabour can stand on that platform and you can see if your opinion is representative.

"Potential vs likely criminals.... not to be confused with *liikely* criminals"

Does your wording make the slur any better? Ultimately you are saying everyone should be viewed as a potential criminal, even when they've done nothing wrong. This is a failed society. It's like Stasi E Germany with everyone being watched as a threat to society!

"We don't live in a utopian society filled with wonderful happy good hearted people"

We never did, there is nothing new here, only that Britain is running off the rails and Hm.gov is taking ill conceived panic steps to fix it. People would rather stab a stranger than shake their hands, and neighbours call the police rather than ask them next door to turn down a stereo...

@"There are plenty of ways of using DNA to help with the solving of crimes"

You argued that *you* would be happy for *your* DNA to go on file. But if you don't commit crimes what benefit is that? Unless you are the sort of person who commits crimes that DNA helps detect and otherwise wouldn't be caught. I ask again, what crimes are you planning on?

This is the core of 'innocent unless proven guilty',

I accused you of being a 'potential' rapist, does it make it friendlier if I accused you of not being a 'likely' rapist? Perhaps you're just an innocent person who deserves to be treated as such?

Do you get to a better society by treating everyone increasingly worse and worse and more suspiciously and more jaundice? Is that how you make society better?

Bigots at work in the Home Office

The HO proposal, failing to distinguish between arrest, charge, trial, and conviction, and making arrest the cut-off for retention of samples, is simply doing as that stupid proportion of the Hoi Polloi (and Plod) does, to presume that arrest really means guilty - and that it is only incompetence (or worse) in the judicial system that allows some people to be exonerated.

Where's the 2-fingers icon when you need one?

IANAL, but the proposal does really address the "proportionality" ruling, and could have been written by Plod to suit themselves.

10% or 0.001%? i.e. 0.14 murders detected!

"I'd rather have a 1% increase false positive rate and 10% increase in true positives than a 0% increase in both."

I let that 10% slip by uncommented. If the offending rate of innocent people is really 1% in those 6 years (I think is reasonable if 5% over a lifetime commit crimes) and 1% of crimes are the type that benefit from DNA, e.g. rape, murder etc. are the ones where DNA samples is taken, not minor crimes that make up the bulk of crime, and say 10% of those wouldn't be caught normally** then it is not 10%, it is 0.001%, i.e. 1.66e-4 in 1 year.

i.e. if 843 murders a year in UK (from crime stats), we're talking 0.14 extra murders solved.

** By Not *Normally* I mean by the mechanism of suspicion > evidence > prosecution. Which includes taking DNA evidence of the suspects.... since the police can always arrest people previously arrested for other crimes if they have reason to suspect them for the new crime, and can take the DNA at that point.

As for the false positives, that's the least of the problems with building a massive database with data identifying the physical characteristics of everyone and storing it under a regime that practically hands it out to everyone whose curious.

@CA

"...see if your opinion is representative."

Nah, there's no point. I know it's not, but it's still the way I feel about it. That's the joy of living in a democracy.

"Ultimately you are saying everyone should be viewed as a potential criminal... This is a failed society"

Yes that's what I'm saying, and yes I would say it's already a failed society. In fact all societies are flawed to a degree and always will be. My argument is that we have to accept that and do our best to mitigate the effects of it.

"But if you don't commit crimes what benefit is that?"

Well, you know, I wasn't aiming for it to just be me. I don't think anyone is asking for a voluntary system, are they? However, I represent one of 50-60 million British citizens who are, as I already said, potential criminals. For every million 'innocent' people, some number will go on to offend. When you're talking about laws for society, you have to look at things in terms of statistics because it's impossible to make informed judgments about individuals. You're suggesting that we trust random, non-specific members of society to not commit crimes even when we have the statistics to prove that X% of 'innocent', i.e. never-convicted citizens will offend at some point. How can we trust society when we have the facts to prove that it isn't trustworthy?

"This is the core of 'innocent unless proven guilty'."

And I agree with this principle entirely. I don't agree that keeping a record of my DNA indicates that I'm guilty of anything. Only that I'm one of a very large group which includes people who are guilty.

"does it make it friendlier if I accused you of not being a 'likely' rapist"

You actually said you 'guessed' I was a rapist. The fact is, you don't know if I am or not. Statistically, and from the perspective of what you know about me (incidentally, not hugely more or less than the government probably knows about me) there's probably a certain (small) chance that I might be. Do you trust me not to be? I don't see any reason why either you or the government should assume that I'm not.

I'd be singing a different song if this was going to restrict us in any way, but it doesn't. It's an purely reactionary system, designed to aid in the prosecution not prevention of crime (the latter only in the form of a deterrent). We would retain all our freedoms to do what we like (including raping, if that's what we want to do). In almost all cases it would have no effect on us whatsoever until such time as we committed a crime. To me it's in refreshing contrast to the likes of DRM which actually stop people from doing things which *might* include illegal activity. But I digress...

Clearly there's a difference of opinion here (!!) about the value of privacy. I think it's overrated.

PS, I'm not a rapist ;)

@CA

"When you're talking about laws for society, you have to look at things in terms of statistics because it's impossible to make informed judgments about individuals."

I'm saying the statistics quoted are bogus and that paper should go through the independant gov stas review office so it's clear just what junk that is.

"You actually said you 'guessed' I was a rapist."

You said it would deter crime if it included *all* people on the database, (which includes yourself). If you won't stick up for your own innocence, then who am I to argue. So it comes down to guessing which crime you will commit. I guessed rape. A terrorist perhaps? A drug dealer?

" The fact is, you don't know if I am or not. Statistically, and from the perspective of what you know about me (incidentally, not hugely more or less than the government probably knows about me) there's probably a certain (small) chance that I might be. Do you trust me not to be? I don't see any reason why either you or the government should assume that I'm not."

In reality, and despite your own lack of defense of your own innocence, I assume that you are innocent of crime unless I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Not 48% innocent until I know you for 6 years.

The Home Office says that there is a 50%+ chance that these innocent people will go on to commit crimes within 6 years, and presumably these are crimes for which DNA is important and so should be kept. i.e. serious crimes.

On the basis of this, it asserts that Human Rights don't matter because the gain is so great.

The paper is junk and Human Rights DO matter.

"I'd be singing a different song if this was going to restrict us in any way, but it doesn't."

I don't believe that, I believe just as relative-matching-by-profile has been developed in recent years, so will correlation profiling to disease, correlation profiling to ability, etc. it will be used to select you for jobs, insurance, clubs God only knows what. I am constantly surprised at how people get from one piece of data to another in unexpected ways!

I don't like surprise when it comes to my privacy. I don't want you to have data that will come back to surprise me in unpleasant ways and as an innocent person I don't why I should give up my right to privacy.

I am saying that this experiment in control and surveillance belongs to dictatorships. Let them discover the horror that is Gene-CCTV. I don't wish to repeat the same mistake that was made under Blunkett, with actual CCTV. Let them discover the future, because the actual benefit of keeping innocent peoples DNA is not worth the damage you do to society.

And if it is, then Home Office won't need to make up phoney stats, because it would have real stats.

DNA test cigarette butts

Perhaps some benefits:

You could test cigarette butts to see who dropped them.

You could test the DNA on door handles for school applications, to make sure the person lives where they say they are.

Benefit inspectors could swab a house to check the single mum is really living alone.

You could run queries on the database to locate the biological father of single kids and send them a maintenance bill.

Did they leave their bin lid open? Check the samples on the handle of the bin.

Who took a crap in that forest? Lets DNA test it.

Is my wife seeing someone? I'll get the place swabbed, now that the DNA samples of everyone has been distributed widely, a company on the net will tell me who it was for 50 quid.

Are you from a family that previously had a lot of strokes, and hence should be refused heart transplants in place of someone less likely to die? Just match your DNA to your families and cross match it to the insurance payout record.

The benefits of this DNA stuff are endless! Well worth losing the right to privacy for.

Oops Error

Should have been "IANAL, but the proposal does not really address the "proportionality" ruling, and could have been written by Plod to suit themselves."

The discrepancy in retention policy between England and Scotland (for instance) can also be seen as a disproportionality at best, racism at worst, but probably only reflects the particular preferences of ACPO Ltd.

"More or Less" commented too...

I've just heard the harshest criticism of the use of statistics in this consultation - an eminent statistician described the misuse of the statistics as comparable to "lying to the House" and seemed to lay the blame on Jacqui Smith (without actually saying her name)!

Just take a listen - BBC Radio 4 - "More or Less" within the last 10 minutes of show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lxh3t