|
U-Know! Forum » Why is DNA profiling bad? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grimo 145 posts |
Edited Sep 07, 2007, 04:22
Sep 07, 2007, 04:21
|
||
|
Now, I'm very much against that judge's recent commnets regarding DNA profiling for all, as I suppose you lot are. Yet a couple of friends have voiced the opinion that 'I've got nothing to hide, so this is good for crime prevention.' I don't trust those who rise to the top of our flawed political system, and consequently I'm pretty sure it'd be used unfairly. The Scottish got in quick to condemn the quote. Bless them! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6979451.stm What do youse lot think?
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 07, 2007, 10:08
|
||
|
I know there's overkill with CCTV, but I'm not opposed to it altogether. Someone close to me was assaulted one Saturday night, and because of these damn things, the twat that assaulted him was swiflty arrested! Mind you, that's more of a rare case of the police actually doing their job! Keeping the records of violent and sexual offenders I think might be a good thing, because there are some things people don't grow out of. But is it failsafe? I remember that hooha with PC Shirely Mckee (sp?) which we got bored of in the end, but she was wrongly accused of tampering in a crime scene via the use of inadequate fingerprint technology. Dunno, if you piss behind a hedge down the park, eh no, I think. x
|
|||
red peony 645 posts |
Sep 08, 2007, 17:41
|
||
|
I don't know too much about DNA profiling over here, but I do know you have to be fingerprinted when opening a bank account, or applying for a drivers license or legal ID card, WHICH you HAVE to legally have on you at all times, if you're over the legal adult age of 18. I imagine there's more going on with our fingerprints than just 'protecting' us from bank fraud.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 08, 2007, 20:19
|
||
|
red peony wrote: I don't know too much about DNA profiling over here, but I do know you have to be fingerprinted when opening a bank account, or applying for a drivers license or legal ID card, WHICH you HAVE to legally have on you at all times, if you're over the legal adult age of 18. Fingerprinted? I don't recall ever being fingerprinted for any of those reasons. Maybe it's a California law?
|
|||
|
red peony 645 posts |
Sep 09, 2007, 00:43
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: red peony wrote: I don't know too much about DNA profiling over here, but I do know you have to be fingerprinted when opening a bank account, or applying for a drivers license or legal ID card, WHICH you HAVE to legally have on you at all times, if you're over the legal adult age of 18. Fingerprinted? I don't recall ever being fingerprinted for any of those reasons. Maybe it's a California law? Yep, could be. Or maybe you haven't opened up a new bank account lately. They fingerprint. (out here, at least) When I first got my driver's license back in the late '70's there was none of this nonsense. Yet, last time I went for a renewal, they printed my wittle fumbs and forefingers. Did you also know that visitors to the US from other countries have some sort of photo taken of their eyeball? Probably an iris scan. I didn't have to do this when I traveled abroad. I wonder why. Anyway, I went off topic. California is full of nuts. Maybe it's just something they do out here.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
Sep 21, 2007, 08:31
|
||
|
grimo wrote: ..... a couple of friends have voiced the opinion that 'I've got nothing to hide'..... WTF?? Then ask them for their bank account number and ATM PIN numbers and see what they have to hide. Idiots, I hate that attitude. The authorities already having your DNA makes it much easier to 'fit you up' WHEN the whole system rots to it's core in future. If the police had had the DNA profiles of the Birmingham 6 or Guildford 4 then the framing would have been complete with no come-back. As mentioned previously, the Shirley McKie case in Scotland should be major cause for concern for everyone! The Scottish Labour Politicos combined with the now gone top lawmaker (forget the supercilious cunts name) to try to sweep the damage and debris away. Real Scary Stuff!
|
|||
pooley 501 posts |
Sep 21, 2007, 11:19
|
||
|
I think there is a bit of a difference between giving DNA and your bank account detail. I'm not sure where i stand on this, but that was a bit of a silly comment for obvious reasons. As for the birmingham 6, maybe it would have given them the evidence to prove their innocence a bit quicker???? is that naive??? I reallt don't like this mistrust the police just because they are police attitude. I know there is a huge amount of corruption in the force (probably a bit less these day) but in my dealings with them (and I have had a lot) they have always been fantastic, helpful and done their job well. Maybe I just have a good force in my area.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 21, 2007, 19:08
|
||
|
There's this assumption that DNA profiling is pretty foolproof, and that if an expert in a courtroom says your DNA was there, then it must true and thus you must be guilty. But I did jury service recently and it's so important that you don't automatically make the last step above unthinkingly. There were two 'expert witnesses' who knew about fires, and they said it was very very unlikely that the fire had been started accidentally with a fag end. The prosecution used this to imply that the people smoking in the vicinity weren't responsible, and therefore it must have been the Accused, who set it deliberately. But there was no proof of this final step at all - it could have been other people who started the fire, not the defendant. So we said he was not guilty. - like the birmingham six or whoever, it looked like the police had presumed early on that he did it, and stopped looking for evidence that anyone else had done it. Just because your dna's at the crime scene doesn't make you guilty! So why keep this database? It's not right. You're innocent until proven guilty. Do you want to live in a police state where your every move is monitored, just because a tiny minority of people commit crimes? It's ridiculous.
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Sep 21, 2007, 19:12
|
||
Actually, the vast majority commit crimes, whether smoking weed or breaking the speed limit.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 21, 2007, 21:55
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Actually, the vast majority commit crimes, whether smoking weed or breaking the speed limit. Those are minor civic infractions, not crimes. (even in places where marijuana possession is still illegal, most police departments put little if no energy into cracking down on casual smokers nowadays... they might lump that in if they catch you doing something else) .... Are you saying that most people are criminals? I hope not!
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
