More fuel to the DNA debate

Big Brother Watch has always been opposed to the retention of the DNA of innocent people on the National Database; click here to see the full list of blogposts we have written on the issue.

The past 24 hours have seen some interesting developments on this topic, all of which add fuel to the argument that anyone who has their DNA taken and is later found to be innocent should be entitled to expect, rather than have to request its removal from the database.

The first story, from the Daily Mail, reveals that just 0.3% of solved crimes are due to the DNA database.

The research shows that - despite the massive expansion in the Government database - only 3,666 crimes are detected every year with links to an existing DNA profile.

That is one in every 1,300 of the 4.9million crimes carried out, and just one in 350, or 0.3 per cent, of the 1.3million crimes solved by police, according to the home affairs select committee.

This research may have influenced the House of Commons' Home Affairs Select Committee, who yesterday said the following about the Government's current policy on DNA

"The current situation of indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted is impossible to defend in light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and unacceptable in principle," the committee says in a report published on 8 March 2010.

Crucially, in their recommendations the Committee stated that "DNA alone is unlikely to result in a conviction for crime." This is particularly significant given the Prime Minister's speech last week, in which he accused opponents of retaining innocent DNA of 'helping rapists'.

Finally, from the Metro this morning, comes the news that the African Caribbean Leukaemia Trust are struggling for organ and blood donations because people fear that their DNA profile will be added to the database.

All three stories are yet further evidence of why the Government's present policy on DNA retention is completely wrong. DNA is rarely crucial in solving crimes. The current length of time we retain profiles is anti-liberty and breaking the ECHR judgement. And the database is causing real and tangible damage to the Afro-Caribbean community because of its prejudice against young black males.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Reason]

“fears that DNA could be used by the police are deterring black and Asian people from donating blood, bone marrow and organs”

Yes, if travel data from Oyster cards are being used to track people, then I wouldn’t put it past the police to attempt to use DNA from blood, bone marrow and organs donations to track people.

I used to donate blood but I wouldn’t dream of it now for this reason.

[Reason]

Yes, so the DNA database is 99.7 per cent useless.

[Gareth]

The Home Affairs select committee saying

"The current situation of indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted is impossible to defend in light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and unacceptable in principle," the committee says in a report published on 8 March 2010."

is both good and bad - why on earth should it take the ECHR to do the job Parliament is supposed to? They could have just said it was 'impossible to defend and unacceptable' without hiding behind another authority and leaving wiggle room for it to be unacceptable, in principle, but remain accepted practice.

[alastair]

"And the database is causing real and tangible damage to the Afro-Caribbean community because of its prejudice against young black males."

You're in danger of conflating statistical fact with prejudice or bias. The reasons that young black males are "over-represented" on the DNA database are the same as the reasons they constitute a greater proportion of our prison population, and so on and so forth. It has less to do with prejudice or discrimination and more to do with the statistics about criminal behaviour in that group.

As far as unpicking the precise reasons behind those statistics, it is difficult; the Select Committee on Home Affairs published this report which might be of interest:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhaff/181/18102.htm

While the report did identify discrimination as a factor (unsurprisingly, since *any* amount of discrimination would be), it also highlighted numerous other reasons, having nothing to do with any kind of racial bias, for the increased likelihood of young black males becoming involved in the criminal justice system, and it is quite clear that it is reasonable, therefore, to expect that there would be proportionately more DNA records in the database from that group.

[peter xyz]

I second Reason's comment about no longer donating blood for this reason.

[guy herbert]

@ Reason: "so the DNA database is 99.7 per cent useless..."

Not on those figures, it isn't. If the database is roughtly 6M samples (tho' increasing at several hundred thousand a year) and helps (in some way) to solve 3,600-odd crimes a year, then even if all of the crimes it does help solve are comitted by different people, then only 0.06% of the database is currently useful in a year.

[LeChiffre]

@Gareth - the ECtHR is doing the job which parliament, bribed by the government with expense accounts, failed to do.

@Alastair - "White males made up 83 per cent of the male prison population of British nationals in England and Wales in 2003. Black British nationals accounted for 12 per cent."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1101

[tony]

if i refuse to donate my DNA i'm helping rapists ...

overwhelmingly persuasive logic

where do i sign?

[alastair]

@LeChiffre: Which is out of proportion. The "Black British" population is roughly 2% of the overall population, so if the rates of offending, conviction and sentencing were the same across the board we would only expect them to make up 2% of the prison population. They don't, they make up 12%, which is *six times* what we would expect.

While it's possible that *some* of that is due to outright discrimination, the report I linked to seems to indicate that there are plenty of other reasons for the discrepancy that are entirely legitimate and nothing whatsoever to do with prejudice. As a result, one would also expect them to be over-represented on the DNA database, for reasons having entirely to do with the statistical difference.

[LeChiffre]

@alastair

40% of all black British men are on the DNA database and yet they make up, say, under 1% of the overall population.