The Labour attack machine has lost its teeth

NickL

Hmm. I just wonder how credible Mr Brown's claim is though - is it just a Brownie? For it to be true, well over 1000 previuosly unconvicted people would have been convicted each year of unrelated offences on the basis of their DNA samples. What is the true statistic here - the total number of people convicted on the basis of all DNA samples retained?

Richard Nabavi

As I understand it, the DNA of anyone arrested for even the most trivial alleged offence is currently placed on the database.

It would be simple to restrict it to those arrested on suspicion of more serious crimes only.

Hysteria

statistical issue here no doubt - and you can't prove what would have been the conviction rate in the absence of the DNA.

No "automatic" DNA, the police work a little harder and put the case togethr using "old" techniques. They get a suspect, take the DNA sample and bingo case proved......

Need someone expert in this area to help the debate though!

Fergus Pickering

Brown is saying that 114 murderers would have had their DNA deleted from the database because these 114 murderers had previously been charged but not convicted of a crime. He is further saying that there was no other evidence against these 114 murderers than their DNA. Do you believe him?

salieri

Good point, NickL. Leaving aside instinctive disbelief of any statistic whatever used by Mr. Macbeth to bolster his case, the conviction figures he mentions add up to about 600.That suggests that the DNA of 7,400 out of 8,000 people 'matched with crime scenes' were not actually matched with the crime.

Let's credit the weasel word "includes" and chuck in another 200 or so for lesser offences. What, then, of the civil liberties of the 90% who were demonstrably innocent?

QED

dexey

I'd be quite happy for dna to be taken from the whole population and stored.
We have laws that should be obeyed, anything that reinforces that seems good to me.

Scott

dexey, tracking DNA for everyone safeguards no-one. If someone collected clippings of your hair from a hairdresser for example, or rescued a paper cup from a wastebasket, and left them at a crime scene, how could you prove your innocence?

Fergus Pickering

Ia gree with dexey. But only if it is the WHOLE population, meaning HM the Queen, Gordon Brown and every sodding celeb in the land. No, I thought not.

Kevyn Bodman

Scott,
Thank you.You've said it there.

In theory you never have to prove your innocence, but the prosecution would have gone a long way to 'proving' your guilt.
That's if they're going to bother with trials in the future.

Danvers Baillieu

Scott, just because your DNA is at a crime scene, doesn't mean you are guilty of anything. All it does is immediately narrow down the focus of any investigation. Furthermore, if this sort of fear about framing is real, then why distinguish between someone who has been convicted of a crime and the rest of the population.

I have been blogging on civil liberties and the balance that needs to be struck: http://danversbaillieu.blogspot.com (excuse the plug, please editor).

Mark

Brown's figures come from the National DNA Database Report for 2005-6 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/DNA-report2005-06.pdf?view=Binary), page 36. What Brown adds is the suggestion that all of those whose DNA matched DNA found at the scene of the various crimes would have got away had their DNA been deleted from the database. That is, of course, most unlikely, although it must be conceded that some of them might well have done. What Brown does not mention is that 194,000 individuals who have not been convicted have their DNA on the database and have yet to be macthed to any DNA found at the scene of a crime. That is 194,000 out of the 200,300 whose DNA remains on the database because of a change to the law in 2001.

Nicholas

As I understand it DNA evidence cannot stand alone but is corroborating evidence and also used, in the same way as fingerprints were, to identify suspects from existing records to link them to specific crimes.

Fingerprints taken from persons not charged or convicted used to be destroyed. I am not sure what the imperative was for retaining DNA in similar circumstances but suspect it was considered at the time of its introduction to be the thin edge of the national DNA database wedge being promoted by the police.

I also understand that the DNA methodologies as used by the police in Britain have been criticised as unreliable and not safe by many leading DNA practitioners and are outlawed in many countries.

Britain has an unfortunate history of putting the wrong people in prison and even hanging them. The arguments put forward by people like dexey ignore that and always assume that those subject to prosecution and imprisonment are actually guilty. This is hard to appreciate unless you have been falsely accused and/or convicted of a crime you did not commit.

Brown's trumpeted figures are certainly misleading and no doubt police inspired. What they do not appear to contain is a breakdown of how many of those whose DNA was taken and who were not subsequently prosecuted or convicted were later linked to the crime statistics used by Brown. That would be the true rationale for retaining DNA in those circumstances.

The rhetoric used by Brown appeals to the mindset that would have gathered at Tyburn to watch public hangings. Labour's record on criminal justice is police led, dangerous and completely incompatible with traditional British concepts of justice. Labour have an unhealthy (for democracy and justice) alliance with the police through the completely undemocratic influence exercised by senior police officers and organisations like ACPO. Police officers should not be involving themselves in politics or making public statements promoting or proposing changes to the rule of law. They should limit themselves to giving advice when asked for it, not pursuing their own agenda at the expense of liberties enjoyed for centuries by the British people.

Helen Wallace

Gordon Brown is in a more difficult position that James Forsyth thinks because the 114 murderers who "would in all probability have got away" if innocent people had their records removed from the DNA database do not exist. This figure is based on a statistical estimate of the number of matches that may have been between crime scene DNA profiles and the DNA profiles of unconvicted people, based on a number of unverified assumptions. More importantly, many matches occur with victims or with passers-by or are false matches. So far the Government has failed to identify any murder cases that have been solved as a result of keeping innocent people's DNA records, despite persistent questioning from MPs of all political persuasions on this issue.

Pat

The police should take Mr brown and his family DNA for him to see how it feels