David Agnew

The British Crime Survey estimates that there were 47,000 rapes in 2004. Of these, only 1 in 7 were reported to the police, and of these, only 5.6% resulted in a conviction. This means that less than 1% of rapists are convicted.

To deter crime, certainty of punishment is much more important than severity (criminals don't think that they will be caught). So currently there is little deterrent. If everyone was on the DNA database, this would be a powerful deterrent, as all rapists would be caught after the first offence. The level of rape would collapse. (There would still be the problem of securing convictions, but I won't go INTO phpbb_that here).

I think that a universal DNA database is acceptable for the following reasons. (I have resurrected the 3 'freedom tests' from my post 'Crime - Automatic Vehicle Tracking'):

1. The Privacy Test
Only the police and your doctor (on your say so) would have access to the database, so there would be no loss of privacy (it wouldn't mean anything to anyone else anyway).
2. The Hassle Test
If taken as a baby, you wouldn't be aware of it, or have any memory of it, so it would have no affect on your life whatsoever (unless you commit a crime, obviously).
3. The Public Benefit Test
I have already outlined the crime benefits with regard to rape, but it would also mean that where there is DNA evidence all first time criminals would be caught.

There would be medical benefits as well. For example, your doctor could use your DNA profile to advise you if you have a genetic suseptability to certain diseases, so that you can alter your life style accordingly.

There is another significant benefit: avoiding the transmission of genetic disease. Your doctor could tell you if you and your wife are likely to transmit genetic diseases to your children. This would mean that the number of people born with disabilities would be reduced.