The Big Brother DNA Database
So now you just assume everyone’s guilty of smething?
The present database in England and Wales holds details of 4m people who are guilty or cleared of a crime.
Lord Justice Sedley said this was indefensible and biased against ethnic minorities, and it would be fairer to include everyone, guilty or innocent. (BBC)
It is indefensible and biased - but it would not be fairer to include everyone, guilty of innocent. Why not instead remove from the DNA database of everyone who hasn’t been convicted - or at least not even prosecuted - for a crime? That would be fairer. They haven’t committed a crime, or even been suspected of one enough to get to court, so why should their DNA be kept?
Since the number of DNA samples and kept in the database were taken from those who were not convicted of a crime amounts to around 10% of the total, the DNA database should be all rights be significantly smaller than it is now. Especially considering that they can’t even seem to be able to keep up with the number they’re taking already, how can they be able to get DNA from everyone else?
What they are trying to do is enact true Orwellian policies. Big Brother in action. They can see us, listen to us, and speak to us via CCTV cameras now. And they want to know our genetic make-up now! My DNA is my DNA, not theirs. And I don’t want it in a national database.
What is worst thing about Lord Justice Sedley’s outburst? The response from Tony McNulty, Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing:
I have said that myself in the past, that there is a real logic and cohesion to the point that says, ‘Well, put everybody on’.
But I think he probably does underestimate the practicalities, logistics and huge civil liberties and ethics issue around that.
McNulty also suggested that in future DNA could be taken “as a matter of course” after any encounter with the criminal justice system. This is also joined by the PMS, who said:
But what about the innocents whose DNA is already on the database? Surely that has to be morally wrong, if not illegal. Where’s Brown’s “moral compass” now? The only politician who has replied to this issue with integrity is David Davis:
It is long past time that the Government answered our calls for a Parliamentary debate about this database and to put it on a statutory basis.
The only acceptable thing to do with this sort of DNA database is to only permanently keep the DNA of those who have been convicted of a crime. A case could be made for keeping those who were prosecuted but acquitted by a jury for a limited period, depending on the severity of the charge. But for those who are not even charged with a crime, their DNA should not even be added to the DNA database. Once that investigation is over, their DNA should be removed from all records. Anything else is a perversion of justice.
UPDATE: Something I forgot to include in the original post, reminded to me by a post on this issue at Liberty’s Requiem.
In England and Wales, DNA is retained from anyone who is arrested but in Scotland DNA samples must be destroyed if there is no charge or conviction….
Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said blanket retention was “unacceptable”. (BBC)
For once, I can have nothing but admiration for the SNP. It’s a very strange feeling for me to have, since normally they are just utterly stupid. Now I’m going to write words I never thought I’d type: Well done SNP!
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times
This entry is filed under Big Brother, David Davis, Law and Order. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Excellent post. This is the type of Goverment control that scares the life out of me! I do not agree that anyone, including people convicted of a crime, should have something as personal as their DNA held by, and subject to exploitation by anyone. That is a step too far.