Progresivo
Activismo de los medios
Cargamento…
| Registro | ¿Contraseña perdida? | Boletín de noticias
Una contraseña será enviada a usted. Conexión | ¿Contraseña perdida?
Un email le será enviado. Conexión | Registro
Traduzca:
Translate to EnglishÜbersetzen Sie zum Deutsch/GermanПереведите к русскому/RussianΜεταφράστε στα ελληνικά/GreekVertaal aan het Nederlands/Dutchترجمة الى العربية/Arabic中文翻译/Chinese Traditional中文翻译/Chinese Simplified한국어에게 번역하십시오/Korean日本語に翻訳しなさい /JapaneseTraduza ao Português/PortugueseTraduca ad Italiano/ItalianTraduisez au Français/FrenchTraduzca al Español/Spanish

Herramientas: Noticias | Comentario del poste | Versión de la impresora | Email al amigo

Sábado 23 de febrero de 2008

¿Quién debe estar en el registro de la DNA?

Comparta este artículo:

Estos iconos se ligan a los sitios bookmarking sociales en donde los lectores pueden compartir y descubrir nuevos Web pages.
  • Digg
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • feedmelinks
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • Spurl
  • Mancha
  • Fark

Valle de Iain

Balancear las responsabilidades del estado contra las derechas del individuo es una de las cosas más difíciles para que los políticos consigan derechos. La tendencia es ser toda a favor de libertades civiles mientras que en la oposición pero invertir al tipo autoritario cuando en el gobierno. Eso se sucede ciertamente con este gobierno de trabajo. Y en tiempos de amenazas para la seguridad nacional, los políticos necesitan ser absolutamente valerosos oponerse a todas las demandas para imponer medidas autoritarias ante el populacho.

The argument surrounding DNA evidence is a perfect example of the dilemmas faced. At the moment only someone interviewed by Police has their DNA taken. If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted. Some argue that if the government had everyone’s DNA on record it would make the Police’s life far easier and crimes would be solved much more quickly. It’s a similar argument to ID cards.

This week European judges will consider the case of two people who were charged with a crime but never convicted who want their DNA wiped off the national database. This case has far reaching implications and could lead to more than 500,000 other people’s DNA being wiped.

This is a really difficult one for people like me who believe that the rights of the individual must be protected from the pervasive influence of the State. In theory I would support the right of the innocent individual to have their records wiped if they had been found not guilty of a crime, or not even charged. However, the real world does not operate in this way. The individual also has the right to be protected from harm by others, and it is the role of the State to introduce laws which enable that to happen.

As I understand it the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives believe that only those convicted of a crime should be on the DNA database. It’s a consistent position and easy to argue. The fact that 100,000 innocent children are on it and should never have been, 26,000 police-collected samples have been left off it and half a million entries have been misrecorded lend weight to the view that the government is incapable of managing such sensitive data.

And yet, and yet. What worries me is that sex attackers and murderers are more difficult to find without full access to DNA records. So I wonder if a messy compromise isn’t something we should be considering. My only exceptions to the “No DNA record unless charged” rule would be for people interviewed on suspicion of rape or murder. I accept that it would mean some innocent people being added to the DNA register, but it would undoubtedly reduce the time it takes the Police to solve these two heinous crimes, and therefore prevent others from taking place. Of course one can take this further and use the same argument in favour of everyone having their DNA taken, as it would then lead to other crimes being solved more quickly. I realise that. But I’m afraid that murder and rape are crimes which merit a different and stronger approach.

UPDATE: Martin corrects me in the comments: “Actually Iain you’re wrong to say:”If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted.”People who are arrested but not charged remain on the DNA database.”Before 2001, the police could take DNA samples during investigations but had to destroy the samples and the records derived from them on the Database if the people concerned were acquitted or charges were not proceeded with.The law was changed in 2001 to remove this requirement, and changed again in 2004 so that DNA samples could be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station.”http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/using-science/dna-database/So the dataabse is already being populated with the DNA of people who have never been charged just in case they later go on to commit a crime. Either they should be removed or everyone should be added.

 Section has more related reports

Help keep RINF going..

Comment on 'Who Should be on The DNA Register?' :

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News:

  • Police must not store DNA details of the innocent - report
  • DNA database growth defended by police
  • DNA database swabs over 100,000
  • A ‘chilling’ proposal for a universal DNA database
  • Police face DNA ban

  • This entry was posted on Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm and is filed under Surveillance, General, Human Rights . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    © RINF.COM Underground Gateway. All rights reserved.
    Send Alternative News And Breaking News To: Editor @ rinf.com
    There Are 994 Users Online Right Now
    Current Discussion

    Breaking News