DNA Poll
I have a poll in the sidebar asking under what circumstances you think the Police should be able to take a DNA sample. You can choose multiple options.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: blog poll, DNADNA Poll
39 Responses to “DNA Poll”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
What argument is there really against compulsory DNA testing at birth if it aids in solving crime? In this ‘enlightened’ age surely we no longer fear our government has anything but our best interests at heart, so it shouldn’t really be much of an issue.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I agree with F E Smith.
Take DNA at birth and from every person in NZ, also take it at our borders when anybody arrives in NZ.
Decent, law abiding Kiwi’s have nothing to worry about.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Does anyone know what the false positive rate of DNA matching is?
(i.e. what is the probability that your DNA will match DNA from a crime scene if you did not commit the crime?)
October 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
At birth of course. This removes the problems of racial discrimination because some cultures have higher offending rates.
Also, drivers license or IRD # should be used as a national ID #. I’ve seen this in use in other countries and works really well.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Come and get mine now.
You’re welcome to it.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
No option of “only with a court order”?
Kinda like a search warrant, but for searching a person for DNA instead…
October 29th, 2009 at 10:58 am
DNA is already collected at birth via the Guthrie heel prick. Police have accessed this data once, to confirm the identity of an accident victim.
Those countries that most strongly resist this sort of invasion of privacy are those (like France) with living memories of the holocaust, which could not have occurred without the collection of biometric data. Perhaps DPF might like to think of it from that perspective.
[DPF: I have not expressed a view to date - just running a poll. My views is that it is reasonable to take a sample from someone charged with a serious crime, so long as it is destroyed if they are not convicted]
October 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
At birth is fine by me if you ain’t a crim it won’t matter and it might make some of the retards think twice before offending if they know the chance of being caught is much greater as that is the main thing that crims worry about apparently.
I speak of course as an almost non-offender. I have only committed one crime in my life that I feel truely repentant for, I voted Labour once.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I personally believe the government should be passing legislation that DNA is collected from every criminal, tourist, immigrant and newly born New Zealand citizen. Existing citizens should be offered the choice of voluntarily submitting their DNA to such a database in exchange for a life time tax deduction of x%.
I also think the government should offer tax reductions to those who vote each election.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“I also think the government should offer tax reductions to those who vote each election.”
Not if they vote for the left. In that case their taxes should be increased to pay for their buddies like Phool.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
A discussion that is overdue regarding DNA is how the future shape of life, accident and medical insurance will be affected by DNA testing.
While not necessarily parallel to the use of DNA for identifying criminals, the ability of Insurers to throw the old principles of collective cover and “averaging risk” out the window and skew their risk profiles by refusing to insure people with certain predisposing genetic conditions or by excluding some illnesses/surgeries/causes of death from individual policies is creeping up on us and will inevitably alter the balance of risk and cover.
If DNA testing is conducted at birth (or entry to the country in case of tourists and immigrants) how long before Insurance Companies require anyone applying for a policy to authorise access to that DNA profile for screening purposes? It is an extension of differential premiums for car insurance depending on the location of your residence.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Tch tch FE Smith you old cynic you!
October 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Herald..
“The Maori Party is warning young Maori will fight back against police trying to take a DNA swab”.
why? Why so precious…what have they got to hide??..
October 29th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Because only 1% of crimes have useful DNA samples that could aid in solving the crime, and it costs several thousand dollars to collect an profile sample and even more to maintain the database. DNA isn’t flawless either – mistakes can and do happen. The actual rate of conviction is miserably low – I can’t find the source, but it’s something like 1 in 100,000 crimes are solved using the DNA database, so there’s a strong economic argument for not maintaining it in such a blanket manner.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490298/
An increase in the number of people on the database in the UK because of these kinds of changes in the law hasn’t led to an increase in the number of convictions due to DNA evidence from the database. Although there’s no evidence that it’s causal, in that time there’s actually been a decrease in the proportion of crimes solved using the database.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:25 am
“why? Why so precious…what have they got to hide??..”
Probably want to hide the fact that they have four different mothers all collecting the benefit for them.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:28 am
@Starboard 11:15am
Its only an extension of their refusal to give samples for blood alcohol testing on the grounds that Joris de Bres once said that we are not allowed to take the piss out of Maoris
October 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
DPF: “I have not expressed a view to date – just running a poll. My views is that it is reasonable to take a sample from someone charged with a serious crime, so long as it is destroyed if they are not convicted”.
I agree essentially, depending on what the definition of serious is. The Courts have held a ’serious offence’ to be one that would attract a sentence of 4 years or more, however that isn’t known until after sentence. I think including offences with a maximum penalty of 1 year is too low as it catches to many people. Most of those offences aren’t a risk to public safety. Even including the offences with a 7 year maximum penalty capture some minor offeners, such as a person with just over an ounce of cannabis.
I support sampling for those arrested for murder related offences, manslaughter, all sexual offences, burglary,(as it leads on to sexual offending), and animal cruelty, arson, criminal damage, firearms offences and perhaps a few others.
Such samples should be destroyed if no conviction results.
However, I don’t think samples should be taken as a matter of course for drug or (non -burglary) property offences as there is no rational connection between serious crime solving and the taking of samples from those offenders.
In respect of DNA sampling from birth, such massive amounts of information can be both abused, by people like Hitler (of which there are a few out there), and lost or leaked as has happened embarrassingly regularly with data in Britain. Neither of these possibilities can be guarded against sufficiently to warrant sampling at birth.
[DPF: Good to see we broadly agree. I put the option of DNA sampling at birth in as a joke - didn't realise so many people would vote for it! I don't want some future Govt sending me a fine in the mail because they detected my DNA on a banana skin on the ground]
October 29th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Also, let’s require everyone to report all their activities via gps-enabled implants and Keep Their Hands Where We Can See Them. Innocent Kiwi’s have nothing to fear.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I agree on having a “serious crime” threshold – but this could be widened to a 3 strikes and you’re DNAed with a lower (or no) threshold too, recidivist criminals are probably more likely to go on to commit worse crimes.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I submit that those of you who clearly support the rights of the state to extend willy-nilly their intrusion into the lives of citizens are simply wrong. On this point, classical liberals and much of the Left should agree, for the roots of their poisitions on this are, in philosophical terms, common.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Will all politicians be DNA tested on election?
Just thinking about crime prevention here.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
The percentages currently add to 179 ! The poll percentage calculations are broken.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Razork
“Come and get mine now.
You’re welcome to it.”
You sweet talking devil!
October 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
While I voted; “Those charged with a serious crime, but sample destroyed if not convicted”, I do feel that even if only used at this level, there would be a continual push to increase DNA sampling for all crime until we eventually end up having DNA sampling at birth with this remaining on permanent record.
As others have mentioned, this may indeed reflect on insurance, etc while going through a voluntary stage.
I’m sure the big push, though, will come by reason of immigration control, and, more specifically, the control of both domestic and international terrorism.
Watch and weep as we see the continual erosion of our freedoms.
… more end time prophecy fulfillment as we move ever more closely to a One World Government system – Heil Helun!
October 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Kris K, you must be racist, since you appear to be targeting Maoris and Polynesians.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Chris C at 11.20 continues his habit of plucking statistics from the stratosphere and making wild guesses (as earlier this week he was talking about tens of millions of non-white soldiers dying for Britain).
Where does he get this:”… it’s something like 1 in 100,000 crimes are solved using the DNA database, so there’s a strong economic argument for not maintaining it in such a blanket manner…”
Can’t he see the wise and learned F.E. Smith was posting tongue in cheek?
Of course there would be some risk in an all-encompassing DNA database taken at birth. It would be very handy for ethnic cleansing by a demented dictator. On the other hand it would be helpful for planning needs of health services decades ahead, giving a guide to the predisposition towards certain diseases.
I don’t think the economic aspect will be much of an issue as analysis and storage costs continue to dive in this electronic age. But keeping such tabs on every citizen is a bit close to keeping a stud book for my liking. I reckon we should leave that to Ngai Tahu, who need one to identify their increasingly pale members from mainstream pakeha.
October 29th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
DPF – why take the sample on being charged leaving the real potential for Police to stuff up and not destroy when conviction not only gives the justification for the sample but also the ideal opportunity as part of jail induction?
October 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, missed out a vital word: serious. That’s 5% of serious crimes against the person from 0.35% of present crime scenes that contained useful DNA that resulted in a match. And none of those convictions resulted from a DNA match taken from a person who hadn’t previously been convicted of a crime that would have had them on the database anyway.
If you read the link I posted, you’ll find the information – there’s no clear source on the amount cost per match (between ~£400 and £13,000) or the cost per sample taken (between £300 and £3,000).
I know your comprehension is at a very low level, so I’ll take extra trouble to spell things out for you. You’re still unable to distinguish between combatants and casualties, something I did learn in the four years of my honours degree in European History. I’ll take it as a compliment that it bothered you so much to still be talking about it two days later.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Chris posted at 1.35…”…my honours degree in European History..”
No matter how you dress up yesterday’s rubbish by trying to distinguish between combatants and civilian casualties your posts were absurd exaggerations.
A degree in European history? Tosh!
October 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
DPF: “I don’t want some future Govt sending me a fine in the mail because they detected my DNA on a banana skin on the ground:
Why not? After all, if you have littered and therefore committed an infringement offence, then why should you get away with your offending when you can be lawfully identified and given an infringement notice? Such a scenario is not that far removed from the UK local authorities using CCTV to fine you for parking infringements and so forth. If it is accepted there in the name of crime control then what is wrong with it?
October 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Repton, re your comment on the ‘false positive’ rate: I don’t think that is so much an issue as that you can actually fake a DNA result. Moreover, defendants in NZ very rarely have the funds to have a DNA match independently tested, so if something has gone wrong you can be pretty certain that nobody will know!!!
And if nobody knows, then nothing is wrong.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
[DPF: Good to see we broadly agree. I put the option of DNA sampling at birth in as a joke - didn't realise so many people would vote for it! I don't want some future Govt sending me a fine in the mail because they detected my DNA on a banana skin on the ground]
A little off topic, but on the Search and Surveillance Bill, I also sat up when I heard that surveillance video warrants in Britain had been used to secretly film people putting recyclable waste into their rubbish bins. Once the powers are available, they are often used in ways not foreseen by those who think such limits on rights are reasonable.
As for sampling at birth being a joke, for at least 35 years DNA has been taken at birth by heelprick stored permanently on guthrie cards. Only a simple change of legislation, or perhaps even regulation, would be needed to require to enable Police to access it. They have long advocated for this power.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
None!
The Constabulary should not be able to take DNA samples under any circumstances; doing so is pure good old fashioned Communism.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
October 29th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
No problem with it if convicted of a crime, i don’t see why you should have to give up DNA because someone presumes you are guilty.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Ok so what about the guy on Auckland Joseph Thomson. Hundreds of burgs, many rapes and undoubtedly plenty of DNA samples but none on a database that could be matched so he continued to offend and hurt women because no one could match his DNA.
We should also remember that family DNA matching is now possible so by looking at part matching on the database allows identification of probable matches.
Time is not that far away IMHO that there will be a bar code reader that looks at you and reads your DNA. Thought this would happen years ago because the basic idea of DNA and bar codes is the same. Might as well just get on with it for the sake of our communities. Far fetched some might say but I happen to think not.
More important is the collection and use of the data and that’s a never ending issue and has been since the first computer came to NZ.
Once we have an established DNA code then that should be our number for life for everything. In taking away our freedom it actually gives us our freedom. Something for you to argue over tonight.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Further to my last post I read in the weekend that somewhere which I think was Australia they have no developed sim card readers that can recall every text that you have sent and received for the last 5 years even if you delete them. Being used to catch those the use their phones to have a bit on the side but has a lot of ramifications for others as well.
They gave an example of a phone that was no longer used, they read the info and within a few minutes knew who the person was, birth dates, face book, friends contacts and so on.
Just like cache at google.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
There is some ambiguity in the debate here over the use of the term DNA. A DNA fingerprint consists of information about a hypervariable region from one particular region of your genome. It does not contain any information about the rest of your genome. Its only purpose is to identify people. It has virtually no medically useful information in it.
The govt already have your genome on file from the heel prick taken at birth. If they, or an insurance company, wanted to know your risk of getting, say, breast cancer, they might be able glean some statistical hints about this from your heel prick DNA, but they wouldn’t be able to do this from the DNA fingerprint data.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I have now given up on ACT after this and the Search and Surveillance Bill I realised that Rodney and the other ACT MP’s are just politicians who strengthen the state at the expense of the individual.
Those who say, as long as you don’t commit a crime you have nothing to fear are idiots who don’t deserve their freedom. Use your brain what is a crime? It is what the government decides is a crime, that is what you have to fear.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I can’t see much difference between taking a DNA sample or fingerprints. I think everyone charged with an offence should have a sample taken. The man caught breaking into a car might well be the rapist police are looking for.