2007-09-04 21:42:53 · 23 answers · asked by andrew p 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes , as long as they don't mess up the results. Like has happened a few times throughout history. It is a very good way to catch repeat offenders.
I think everyone should be on file. That would greatly speed up catching people. Many of the crimes committed today are by people that aren't on file yet. Though there are many crimes committed by people that are on file. It is a lot easier to catch a person already on file though , then collect the data from so many innocents to catch the one perpetrator.
2007-09-04 21:54:09 · answer #1 · answered by RedBirdofChaos 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Is it the DNA coding itself or the DNA fingerprint that is used in court?
"Fingerprint" being the key word there. Is there a problem of a fingerprint database? No? So there should be no problem with having a DNA fingerprint database.
Now I could go on and on about the 20% error that is mentioned. But simply put....NO! Perhaps the polymerase itself...without the other components that catch errors.....but this is something that should be discussed in the science section
2007-09-05 05:27:31 · answer #2 · answered by emp 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think as a whole it would be a great idea. HOWEVER you must realise that the DNA system of checks and balences is not as good as it claimes. the techniques for takeing and storing is not as safe as it should be.
there is a 20% chance of error. this means you could be arrested for a crime you did not do and be convicted on DNA evidence alone. you would have no defence in this case.
once they have this kind of error margin down to say 2% and some kind of back-ups to be sure you are the correct person, then i say yes lets have a DNA database for everyone in the land to include everyone from the Queen/King all the way down to the lowliest peron in the land. this must also inclued any visitor who comes, even diplomats and dignitaries of all types. in other words every living human that comes into the UK this would be fair and impartial.
2007-09-05 05:20:14 · answer #3 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have no problem with this. I am an honest person, If you have something to hide then I can understand why you would be a bit worried about your past catching up on you.
Take DNA from every new born child, every visitor into our country - you want a passport then you provide your DNA.
2007-09-05 06:06:37 · answer #4 · answered by K W 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't see a problem with it as long as the information is not given to third parties such as insurance companies etc.
I wouldn't want to pay a higher premium just because I might have a gene that says I might have cancer when I'm older.
I don't believe in ID cards however - just don't see the point - anti-terrorism??? B*ll!!! several of the 9/11 terrorists had id cards (although probably forgeries - but no one checked) it'd be a waste of my and your money........ again!!!
2007-09-05 05:10:00 · answer #5 · answered by John H 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have absolutely no problem with it. If you do not do anything wrong why is it a problem? If it helps to catch more of the people who get away with crime these days then I say go for it. You can carry a false passport or driving licence but your DNA carries your true identity.
2007-09-05 04:59:42 · answer #6 · answered by Christina K 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They already hold Birth, marriage and Death, Passport etc. The only difference it would make is to stop people pretending to be someone else, detect crime and act as a very good deterrent.
2007-09-05 04:58:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I dont think its going to make a difference and they already hold alot of information about each individual.
2007-09-05 11:33:44 · answer #8 · answered by Mr Abba 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will be sold to 3rd parties like the 'private' DVLA information. I wouldn't let or trust any government with this information, the only way they will get it off me is over my dead body.
2007-09-05 08:59:24 · answer #9 · answered by the boss 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
by the inherent police power of the government, they can do it. and for purposes of regulation and security only. but if they do it to abuse and violate the human rights of every person, they can't. it's a matter of government policy.
2007-09-05 05:02:18 · answer #10 · answered by marco 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋