Take innocent people out of the DNA database
People who are not charged, or who are found "not guilty" in court, should have their profiles deleted from the National DNA Database, an inquiry funded by the Government has said.
Guilty people whose sentences have beem completed and whose convictions are "spent" should also eventually have their DNA records erased because retaining the profile "continues to criminalise them", the study concluded.
The "citizen's inquiry" overseen by the Human Genetics Commission urged ministers to take control of the database away from the police and the Home Office, by setting up an independent body to own and control the information.
This follows on from very powerful arguments put by Genewatch UK along similar lines (see earlier post) which shredded the arguments for holding the DNA of innocent people advanced by the Prime Minister and others.
I agree with the first point made by the panel: the arguments that holding DNA profiles from those who have not been convicted will significantly improve conviction rates are completely unconvincing (although better collection of DNA evidence from crime scenes would bring more guilty people to justice, and should be implemented.)
I am less convinced about deleting the DNA of those who have been convicted. I think this should depend how serious a crime they were convicted of and probably somtimes on an assessment of how strong a risk they post of re-offending. For example, I don't think there is much point in retaining the DNA profile of those convicted of motoring offences once the conviction is "spent."
For serious crimes against the person - e.g. murder, rape, other sex offences, etc - it is reasonable for society to insist DNA profiles should be retained for life. For crimes posing a intermediate risk perhaps the Parole Board should be asked to make a recommendation about whether the person's DNA profile should be retained at the time of release.
ITN provided the source for some of the information in this post.
Guilty people whose sentences have beem completed and whose convictions are "spent" should also eventually have their DNA records erased because retaining the profile "continues to criminalise them", the study concluded.
The "citizen's inquiry" overseen by the Human Genetics Commission urged ministers to take control of the database away from the police and the Home Office, by setting up an independent body to own and control the information.
This follows on from very powerful arguments put by Genewatch UK along similar lines (see earlier post) which shredded the arguments for holding the DNA of innocent people advanced by the Prime Minister and others.
I agree with the first point made by the panel: the arguments that holding DNA profiles from those who have not been convicted will significantly improve conviction rates are completely unconvincing (although better collection of DNA evidence from crime scenes would bring more guilty people to justice, and should be implemented.)
I am less convinced about deleting the DNA of those who have been convicted. I think this should depend how serious a crime they were convicted of and probably somtimes on an assessment of how strong a risk they post of re-offending. For example, I don't think there is much point in retaining the DNA profile of those convicted of motoring offences once the conviction is "spent."
For serious crimes against the person - e.g. murder, rape, other sex offences, etc - it is reasonable for society to insist DNA profiles should be retained for life. For crimes posing a intermediate risk perhaps the Parole Board should be asked to make a recommendation about whether the person's DNA profile should be retained at the time of release.
ITN provided the source for some of the information in this post.
Comments