By Nick Heath, 30 July 2008 14:20
NEWS
About one million people should have their profiles deleted from the National DNA Database, an inquiry has suggested.
The Human Genetics Commission (HGC) "Citizens' Inquiry" found support for removing the genetic profiles of people who voluntarily provided samples or who were acquitted of a crime.
You what
?
Bust through tech jargon with silicon.com's Cheat Sheets.
The inquiry findings also backed the removal of DNA records from the four-million strong database of those criminals who have served their time.
Its findings also implied that database should be taken away from the police and the Home Office and run by an independent body.
The four-month inquiry found "there is a need to review the arguments for retention of DNA samples" and "the uses that may be made of these samples".
The DNA database provides the police, on average, with almost 3,500 matches each month for a range of offences including murders, sex offences, violent crimes and burglaries.
A Home Office spokesman said it welcomed the inquiry's findings but would not commit to changing samples held in the database before receiving the HGC's full report early next year.
He said in a statement: "The benefits of the National DNA Database lie not only in detecting the guilty but also in eliminating the innocent. The database also focuses inquiries and saves valuable police time."
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
I agree with removing DNA data of people from the database who are innocent of any wrongdoing
samples provided for the purpose of elimination for example should be should be used only for that purpose and removed once they have served that purpose they should not be retained 'just in case' nor should they be used for fishing expeditions
an innocent bystander should be considered to be just that, the fact of being in the wrong place at the wrong time should not be held against them
however some people who have commited crimes and completed their sentence do occasionally reoffend, so I say these people should have their DNA data retained
once you have proven yourself to be a criminal then you are on the radar
2. Jeremy Wickins
I usually agree wholeheartedly with Karen, but I'm not able to go along with her final point whole-heartedly. Not everyone is a "criminal" merely because they have been convicted of something. It is wrong that a minor youthful indiscretion, for instance, should have lifelong effects. Research shows that many young men who indulge in an "unlawful" lifestyle spontaneously stop in their early twenties. They should not be "on the radar" of the increasingly over-controlling government for life.
There is a wide range of offences, both old and new, ranging from serious to trivial. Some can be committed without even realising it ("strict liability" offences don't need any intention, just the act). Many offences are one-offs. The law recognises that it is a bad thing to have certain convictions hanging over one's head for life. Serious offences against the person are, in my opinion, the only reason for life-long retention of DNA data.
3. Karen Challinor
it was a bit draconian I admit
how about retaining convicted criminals DNA for a five year period for minor offences and ten to fifteen for major offences depending on the seriousness such as if it involves violence
but sex offenders can stay on for life