Dna Database a safer society or a big brother state ?

Question

I am part of a debate team at college i would appreciate any ones opinion my arguement for this debate is against.

Answer 1

Just try to remember that most EVERYTHING starts with good intentions! Its when those things get into the hands of the wrong people that it turns bad!

This DNA Database is a grand idea by someone who cares about the safety of people and citizens, but when put into the hands of big government will at some point be used to harm. Does the good outweigh the harm is the question?

I always find it funny among Democrats and Republicans that they gripe about the government's power (phone tapping, freedom of speech, social security cuts, education cuts, etc...) but then always vote to give them more power over our lives so they can then be griping again in five to ten years that the government misused the power! AMAZING!

Answer 2

i may be abit biast being a copper, but ever since we have been taking criminals DNA whenever they are arrested the effects have been amazing.
We've been finding suspects for crimes they committed years ago.

I honestly think that a mass DNA database is a great idea, how many rapists would we catch, how many murderers.

We can go to crime scene and collect DNA and say, alright the following people were here in the last 48 hours, lets go and question them all.

You could say, if you dont do anything naughty, then you dont have to worry about having your DNA on the database.

And that is sound and correct, but its doesn't take into account that people insticntively hate the idea of the powers that be having their DNA, it's a gut reaction that is natural, as people feel like they have lost some control over part of their life.

And yes it is open to abuse by the government, but then only as muchas every other system, and that really is worst case scenario, because if we end up with that type of government then were pretty much stuffed anyway.

personally i think, that nybody against the DNA database idea will change their mind if their mum or sister or girlfriend or wife is raped and murdered and the police turn around and say

"sorry all our lines of enquiry have come to dead ends, we've got his DNA but he's never been arrested so we dont have it on the database. we may never catch whoever has done this"

Answer 3

Ultimately, it depends on how the data is used and who guards the data. Also, if entries to the database were mandatory, then it would become much more of a big brother issue. Though there is always the standard "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" argument, there is still the principle of the matter involved. Indeed, as government goes through changes and new laws come into affect, how will that powerful database of DNA information come into play? Will it be used solely for medical research to your benefit, or will it take on a much sinister role in determining how your life will be conducted, as in the movie GATTACA?

Answer 4

Big Brother State without a doubt.
We should not even go near this as Government cannot be trusted.
But for People who commit serious offences and I do not mean the poor old motorist although Old Labour would have you believe that going three miles an hour over the speed limit is equal to being a serial killer let alone having the nerve to drive your car.
No serious criminal offenders need to be put on a DNA register they by their actions have broken the law of good conduct so they should suffer the fine of being traceable.

Answer 5

I question why a DNA database would make ours a "safer" society? We already have fingerprinting and, in the event of a crime, DNA samples are collected and analyzed. Does it make us safer by identifying people who have genetic diseases (bad for reproduction), mental illness (potentially bad for reproduction and day to day life) or physical attributes we find desirable? In either case, it reeks of Big Brother.
On the other hand, DNA is collected for bone marrow gifts and donor organs, and this is good as long as it is voluntary which it is now, and no government organization has access.
I question any argument that proposes to do something for the collective good because when you take away choice you eliminate the human desire to rise to the occasion and make a decision (like organ donorship) based on "doing the right thing."
Unfortunately, there is always a small-minded, selfish segment of the population who figures that the masses will behave like them and not donate, so to protect themselves, they would make it mandatory for everyone to participate.
And finally, anything that eliminates free will, proposes to benefit the masses, and guarantees a better future (like social security) doesn't work for very long.

Answer 6

as stated above go with the slippery slope argument, what else will the DNA be used for? in future try and come up with ideas of what else DNA could be used for

The other approach to this would be, in who's DNA is collected, I believe the proposal would to change from collecting DNA from people convicted to people arrested. So would that entail if you get a ticket for speeding does the police have a right to take a sample right then?
as toward being arrested relate to your per group, in that you are under age at a party the cops come, does that mean for the rest of your life the government will have access to your DNA to do with as they please?

Answer 7

Big Brother state

Answer 8

Safer Society sign me up I'd be first in the queue! As I am not a criminal, nor likely to be one I have no problems with it. I would be more than willing to hand over a sample if it meant that our streets would be safer.

Answer 9

I think it would lead to a safer society. With the advances in forensic science, finding an offender would be a piece of cake. Regulations are needed, obviously, but ultimately it's a good idea.