John Carter

Rubbish.

All you have to do is look back 50 years at this country to see that we don't need to learn anything from the muslims - all we have to do is relearn what we've forgotten.

mkpdavies

I missed the DNA bit. Screw that, people are not the property of government.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

kernow

David Agnew

Thanks Roger, I've changed it.

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.

kernow

I like David Aknews ideas about DNA and crime. What I would like to know, (don't laugh) is it possible for someone to plant someone elses DNA at a crime scene? If it is then that is the end of 100% proof.

Hartlepool

A single hair,a nail clipping,a used tissue,a garment shaken at the scene,a towel or flannel,toothbrush,razor,comb..............and on......and on......

kernow

:roll: ******

RedWhite&Blue

:wink: They have been doing for years, its called being FRAMED! :roll:

spaman

I basically agree - drugs destroy lives whether legal or otherwise, but they become more wantable when illegal........

No problem with taxing them......... but how to control them - Possibly have designated areas where they could be used (EG- remote Scottish island)

An all encompassing and realistic approach to drugs needs to be found.... and I'm not sure that will ever happen on this planet with so many vested interests....... but I'm of the opinion that heavty drug users are not responsible and should not be included in the discussion of the solution...