DNA misdirection from our former PM

Normally we wouldn't comment on the much heralded return of Tony Blair to British politics, but his speech contained a passage that requires we take a second look. Talking about the DNA database, the former PM said:

"This employs the advanced technology of DNA tracking and matching, to provide incontrovertible evidence of guilt or innocence. Its use so far has resulted in extraordinary breakthroughs. Old crimes, whose victims or their families never received justice, can be solved and perpetrators brought to book. Innocent people have been freed.

"As the database builds up, it becomes an invaluable crime fighting tool. In time, it will also be a fierce deterrent, since criminals particularly murderers, rapists and those who commit violent assault, will know they run a big risk of detection. It is an absolutely sensible use of modern technology. It can actually help prevent abuses of civil liberties.

There are three issues here. The first is his use of 'incontrovertible evidence' as if DNA evidence had never made any errors. Yet, time and time and time again, we have seen that DNA has and continues to make mistakes.

The second issue is that the former Prime Minister implies that those opposed to an expansion of the DNA database are somehow letting 'murderers, rapists and those who commit violent assault' get away with their crimes. Yet, as a staunch opponent of the retention of DNA from those who are later proven innocent, I can say without any doubt that I am not opposed to DNA being collected from those three groups of ne'er do wells.

Finally - and the real ace in the pack - is that final line: the idea that by handing over our DNA to the state we can 'actually help prevent abuses of civil liberties'. I'd love to know how Tony justifies that one. In fact, I'd bet a whole heap that he only included that final line to show that he had considered personal liberty.

Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who invented DNA profiling, said yesterday that it wouldn't be long before police were able to analyse DNA found at a crime scene to draw up an identikit picture of the suspect, detailing physical characteristics such as facial features

Explain how that helps civil liberties, Tony. Indeed, it might be best to leave Sir Alec - a man who knows the potential of DNA better than anyone on the planet - to have the final line as a rebuttal to Blair's return. As The Herald reports:

Mr Jeffreys reiterated his belief that Scotland’s model was right and proper. He said: “I’ve certainly always felt that you’ve got it right and we’ve got it seriously wrong.” He said the database in the rest of the UK undermined the legal tenet of presumed innocence because it contained the details of one million innocent people who felt themselves to be branded “future criminals”.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Honest Gov]

Blair needs to look back at his own acts and omissions, specifically 17 June 2007 when he, as Prime Minister, was informed of crimes reported against his Minister of State for Policing Tony McNULTY.

Metropolitan Police CADS incidents 3493 of 17 June 2007 and 2572 of 31 July 2007.

Crime Reference number 6106010/07

Don't recall the complaints or crimes?

Follow http://www.honestgov.co.uk/2.html
and have a look at why.

Regards

Honest Gov

[DNA]

Former PM :)
Bye Bye Blair

[Purlieu]

Look at that pic of Blair.
Now look at a current pic.
How long ago then ... 10, 15 years ?

[David]

What about Chimerism in humans?

http://humangenetics.suite101.com/article.cfm/basics-of-chimerism-and-mosaicism-in-humans

One individual can have DNA from two different genomes, depending on what tissue is being tested. For example a person's blood may not have the same genomic DNA as their hair or their liver.

[Winston Smith]

How long do you think it will take rapists, murderers, robbers and other criminals to take along copious samples of other people's DNA with which to flood a crime scene?

By selecting the 'donor' to fit the crime and to be reasonably acceptable suspects - eg locals with 'previous' form, loners - the " ... incontrovertible evidence of guilt ... " would seem to be a godsend for the better organised criminals.

WS