Who Should be on The DNA Register?誰應該對DNA的註冊？
Balancing the responsibilities of the State against the rights of the individual is one ofthe most difficult things for politicians to get right.平衡的責任，國家對個人權利的，是一個之最困難的事，政治人物來獲得正確的。 The tendency is to be all in favour of civil liberties while in opposition but to revert to authoritarian type when in government.趨勢是將全部贊成在公民自由，而反對，但要回复到威權型時，在政府。 That’s certainly happened with this Labour government.這當然是發生在這工黨政府。 And in times of threats to national security, politicians need to be quite courageous to resist all the demands to impose authoritarian measures on the populace.並在時代的國家安全的威脅，政客需要相當勇敢抗拒所有的要求強加威權措施對安樂窩。
The argument surrounding DNA evidence is a perfect example of the dilemmas faced.論據周圍的DNA證據，是一個完美的例子之一，所面臨的兩難問題。 At the moment only someone interviewed by Police has their DNA taken.截至目前，只有有人採訪警方已經他們的DNA 。 If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted.如果他們被指控是保持對他們的紀錄，但不能完全取消，如果他們不被定罪。 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.有些人認為，如果政府當時每個人的DNA的紀錄，它將使警察的生命更容易和犯罪行為將得到解決更為迅速。 It’sa similar argument to ID cards.這是類似的道理，以身份證。
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.這週歐洲法官將考慮的情況下兩個人被落案控以一項罪行，但從來沒有被定罪的人希望他們的DNA抹掉國家數據庫。 This case has far reaching implications and could lead to more than 500,000 other people’s DNA being wiped.這宗案件有深遠的影響，並可能導致50多萬人的DNA被抹去。
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.這是一個真正的困難之一，為人民和我一樣的人認為，個人的權利必須受到保護，免受無孔不入的影響力的國家。 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.在理論上，我會支持的權利，無辜個人有自己的記錄抹去，如果他們被發現不認罪的犯罪的，或者甚至不收費。 However, the real world does not operate in this way.然而，現實世界並不具有這樣的。 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.個人也有權利受到保護，免遭傷害別人，這是國家的作用，以引進的法律，讓這種情況發生。
As I understand it the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives believe that only those convicted of a crime should be on the DNA database.據我所知，自由民主黨和保守黨認為，只有那些被判定有罪，就應該由DNA資料庫。 It’sa consistent position and easy to argue.這是一貫的立場，並容易爭辯。 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.事實說，有10萬無辜兒童的意見，並應永遠都沒有， 26000名警察採集樣本已不放過，它和50萬條目已misrecorded借給重認為，政府無能力處理這些敏感的數據。
And yet, and yet.可是，可是。 What worries me is that sex attackers and murderers are more difficult to find without full access to DNA records.我擔心的是，性攻擊和殺人兇手就比較難找到，沒有充分接觸到的DNA紀錄。 So I wonder if a messy compromise isn’t something we should be considering.所以，我不知道，如果一個混亂的妥協，是不是我們應該考慮的。 My only exceptions to the “No DNA record unless charged” rule would be for people interviewed on suspicion of rape or murder.我唯一的例外，以"無DNA的記錄，除非控"的規則，將人們約談涉嫌強姦或謀殺罪。 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.我承認，這將意味著一些無辜的人正在加入到DNA的登記，但它無疑將減少所花費的時間，警方為了解決這兩個犯下的滔天罪行，並因此阻止他人發生。 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.當然可以藉此進一步，並使用相同的論點支持，人人有自己的DNA所採取的，因為這將導致其他罪行的解決更加迅速。 I realise that.我才意識到這一點。 But I’m afraid that murder and rape are crimes which merit a different and stronger approach.不過，我看，恐怕謀殺和強姦罪，值得不同的，更強的做法。
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. 更新：馬丁改正，我在評論： "其實伊恩錯啦說： "如果他們被指控是保持對他們的紀錄，但不能完全取消，如果他們不被定罪"的人被捕，但未被指控留關於DNA數據庫" ， 2001年之前，警方可以採取DNA樣本，在調查期間，但已銷毀樣本，並記錄來自他們對數據庫的，如果人被宣告無罪或收費不接著with.the法改變2001年，以消除這一要求，並改變了在2004年再次使DNA樣本，可以採取由任何人被捕，可錄式的罪行，並被關押在一個警察站" 。 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/using -science/dna-database/so該dataabse已被人口與DNA的人，從來沒有被起訴只是在情況下，他們稍後會去上犯下的罪行。 Either they should be removed or everyone should be added. 要么是應去除或每個人都應該加入。
Database State 數據庫狀態 Section has more related reports 科更多相關報導 Help keep RINF going..有利於保持rinf去..Comment on 'Who Should be on The DNA Register?' : 評論'的人應該是對的DNA註冊？ ' ：
Related News: 相關新聞：
