why do allegedly innocent people complain about fingerprinting / DNA tests they only prove them innocent?

Question

alcohol drink drivers complain about breath tests for alcohol levels but this is accepted by the majority of drivers that don't drink and drive why is the check for identity / criminal evidence any different

in response to jw they are only going to check fingerprints / dna in crime investigations as a better method of catching people that break the law

im getting answers from a lot of guilty people that know the law here they are saying don't check im guilty

in response to olih if you were at a crime scene and you weren't the perpertrator you have nothing to hide and might speed up the investigation by having something to add to speed it up this is a good thing - a good civillian even without dna testing would turn up and help the police anyway

Answer 1

The same Whinging Twats who are ever complaining that the "Police don,t do their Job" , Crime is on the Increase , and so on and so on. we must just ignore them and get on with a system which offers no Penalty if you have done nothing Wrong - but improves the safety of the Public and increases the Arrest Rate of the Tow Rags , who are Screwing Life up for so many innocent folk

Answer 2

I am so sick and tired of hearing you lot bleeting like sheep "if you've nothing to hide why object?" open your eyes and listen to other people than the control freak politicians who are relying on people like you to carry these totalitarian measures.

First and foremost, I'm sorry to sound snappy but you've really riled me, you don't allege someone is innocent...... you allege someone is guilty. This is the cornerstone of any fair and just legal process. To deviate from this is to become dictatorial and essentially a police state. It should not be for a suspect to have to prove his innocence, the burden of proof rests with the authorities. They have the manpower and resources to do this.

In full answer to your question, the reason most object is that the information collected is stored on a database whether you are innocent or not - this is information that literally makes up who you are and is of the utmost intimacy to most. A breathalyser analyses breath and gives a reading - there is no long term data collected from this.
I think you need to remember that D.N.A evidence is not infallible and is only about 99% accurate.

From another point of view - If a police officer has a need of evidence as to my identity, why should I have no right to make that officer undergo the same fingerprinting test I must perform - police officers have the ability to lie aswell and may not tell you their details accurately if you wish to complain about them.

Answer 3

This idea is all well and good if we lived in a society where the Police/Government weren't corrupt. I think it rather naive of someone to not have a problem with random fingerprinting/DNA collection. At the moment it is allegedly "voluntary", however, if someone refuses to volunteer their fingerprints etc they are automatically arrested. Not much of a choice is it? I think that's why people have a problem with it, that and the fact that the Police aren't above misusing evidence to fit a crime.

All in all, it's a great idea in principal but the reality of the situation has much more serious ramifications than you might first assume.

Answer 4

There are two reasons to deny a breath test if you have been drinking:
* A court order would be needed, which can take hours and in that time your body can process alot of alcohol
* The crime of non compliance with police is alot less than a drink driving charge.

As for fingerprinting, there is a large number of errors, as it is a science of trying to match smudged prints with smudged prints, and DNA testing moves to take away civil liberties - plus it is kept on a database so any future crimes the person did commit WILL get back to them.

For jack and Jill innocent however, they will normally jump at this chance to prove their innocence.

Answer 5

People do not realise that for the population born here and on record throughout ones childhood we are the most recorded and followed people in the world. We are perversely a people who believe in freedom of movement and action but have more security cameras in shops and on streeets than any where else in the world. DNA samples can catch criminals and a society who have nothing to fear should feel able to put there blood samples on national record. But unfortunately we have found as a nation that people in power can use information they have fit to whatever theory they have and not to what actually is the truth. In other words we think he did it so lets put some evidence there to prove it. And DNA is now gospel?

Answer 6

We live in a society where we are meant to be free to do what we want but we constantly have "do this" and "do" that, the choice of whether we obey or not is sometimes the only way of proving that we really are free.
If you take choice's away from the people then we might as well become a Communist state where those in power control all our actions.
Freedom means freedom, although i have nothing to hide i see no reason why i must bow down when i have done nothing wrong

Answer 7

I'm not 100% sure of what ur asking but it might be something to do with the fact that even if these poeple are found innocent, their prints are kept on the NDNADB (NAtional DNA Database) forever. there has been a debate about it not too long back trying to get them to take off the fingerprints that have been found guilty in the past but somehow i think thats gonna be impossible.

Answer 8

Perhaps you belong to the "You know it makes sense" brigade, but where do you draw the line? DNA, fingerprints, CCTV, ID cards, bank cards. You leave your electronic footprints where ever you go, that might be OK with todays stable government, but with all this surveillance in place what happens if a government wants to check on the citizen? I have no record and as I'm 'getting' on a bit I cannot see it affecting me much so I'm open to be persuaded.

Answer 9

Under English law, you are innocent until proven guilty. You have the right not to incriminate yourself, going back to Magna Carta.

Random breath testing and DNA / fingerprinting is a case of stopping people without suspicion that they have committed a crime, and asking them to prove themselves innocent. This is inconsistent with the rights granted to us in Magna Carta in 1215.

Answer 10

A relative of mine was turned down for a volunteer drivers job, because he had had a conviction for petty theft 48 years previously, hardly fair, when he was doing a little to help sick people, after all, he paid for the crime at the time.and he was being punished yet again!
In a way that that may be why people are wary of allowing the authorities to collect too much data, it could come back to haunt you at a later date.

Answer 11

What if your DNA or fingerprint shows up at a crime scene that you happened to be at (door handle etc). Think outside the box. The criminal justice system can be quick to make assumptions.