DNA database,a victory for common sense

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Thats fine if DNS is 100% reliable.

LOL Freudian slip - carry on.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

LOL Freudian slip - carry on.

LOL

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

But in the example I put forwards, it WOULD be a 100% accurate match.

Obviously it`d be 100% match as our DNA is unique to us.

I hear what you`re saying but I would hopefully assume that a positive ID would depend on far more than just a hair sample?? Any expert witness in a court case could argue the same point as you have made if somebody had been accused purely on the strength of a strand of hair being found.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

Obviously it`d be 100% match as our DNA is unique to us.

I hear what you`re saying but I would hopefully assume that a positive ID would depend on far more than just a hair sample?? Any expert witness in a court case could argue the same point as you have made if somebody had been accused purely on the strength of a strand of hair being found.

I wouldn't want to put staying out of jail etc on the basis of that.

And while it may only be a telly thing, I can see a bunch of cops standing around with no other evidence saying to each other "he's guilty as sin, we have to be able to get him on something".

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

... but I would hopefully assume.....

That's the problem, do we trust those in power? This is the same attitude as 'the government cares about us....' and 'all policemen are honest...'. Frankly I find the DNA database a scary tool for lazy policing. In the 70's some cops would coerce a confession out of a suspect, but this was stopped by taped interviews / right for a solicitor to be present / etc Now there have been many miscarriages of justice revealed from this period...

How many will be revealed in 10-20 from blindly believing the DNA evidence?

They only need a minuscule amount of DNA to get a match. How easy is that to plant then? Grab suspect, get spit / blood / hair 'by accident', 'accidentally' handle the physical evidence.... hey presto DNA evidence that you had physical contact with the physical evidence. Juries think DNA is infallible and will lend weight to it.........

Yep I do see what you and SK are saying and I do agree it`d be a worry. Ok I`ll halt my current line of thought..... the jury`s out for now

matching a persons DNA is virtually 100% reliable, short tandem repeat recognition is a reliable technique, there are only 2 problems identifying DNA, one is making sure you only amplify DNA from the actual sample, not any DNA from a non sterile reaction (this is not too hard to avoid, and owuld not give a false result), the second problem is that its very easy to plant DNA evidence due to the small amount of material needed (less than 10 picograms of DNA is required)

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

Yep thats a good point. The 2 cases I quoted stated that they used DNA from sperm found on the victims clothing. I`m not sure but I reckon it`d have to be 100% "without a shadow of a doubt" before the police could arrest someone.

No they can arrest you on suspiscion.

And as several cases have proven, if they are looking hard enough for evidence they will find some. Look at the nutter who supposedly shot that newsreader, yes he was bonkers but only evidence was a scrap of primer... from a man with a penchant for blank firing pistols

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

Obviously it`d be 100% match as our DNA is unique to us. .

We share 99% of our DNA with an earthworm!

I know what you mean, but testing our entire DNA would take so bloody long, it's just not done. Instead they test a small part of junk DNA, and this is unfortunately not 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by Speedy Claire

If you`re not a criminal then you have nothing to fear by your DNA being held.

I see the argument, but I fear having to prove yourself innocent of a crime you did not commit.

Using DNA from criminals to search for old crimes is absolutely fine in my book.

[yorkie_chris]

That's already accepted. Look at speed cameras