Tonight:
4°c
'This could ruin lives in the wrong hands'
Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties31 Mar 2009
This debate invites exaggeration; bloggers' rants about "living under the Stasi" and ministerial platitudes of "nothing to hide; nothing to fear".
DNA provides vital evidence for convicting killers and acquitting innocents. It is also the most intimate material revealing true parentage, health prospects and other genetic information that could ruin lives in the wrong hands. Common sense suggests suspects have their DNA taken on arrest and checked against samples from crime scenes past and present. It is retained during investigations and trials. The question is who should have their DNA kept permanently.
Some say nobody (underplaying the rights of future victims if a released offender is tempted to strike again). Others would like to stockpile the DNA of every man, woman and child just in case they offend one day. They underestimate the fallibility of people and systems and the dangers to privacy, security and race equality if governments, contractors and criminal hackers could profile entire populations this way.
Our government veered towards the universal option but lacked the courage or conviction to ask parliament or the public to agree. Instead it built a database by stealth allowing permanent DNA retention of anyone ever arrested with no need for a charge, let alone conviction for the slightest offence. When having your collar felt is sufficient, it's hardly surprising that so many young black men are on the largest database of this kind in the world. No wonder the Court of Human Rights found Government policy disproportionate and unlawful in its recent damning judgment.
Those calling for universal coverage forget the financial, practical and ethical problems of marching every small child and OAP down to the police station to be "swabbed". They forget security and accuracy risks that come from a gargantuan haystack in which to search for your needles. All it takes is a few mismatches or compromised samples and juries would become skeptical of the soundness of DNA.
It is extremely rare for a first time serious offender to be matched to a crime scene by an old sample alone. There is almost always enough suspicion coming from witnesses, victims, car licence plates etc. to justify arrest and DNA being taken. In some recent high profile cases the police ignored vital leads and simply failed to make arrests that would have stopped serial rapists in their tracks. Liberty once advised a woman who went through the ordeal of a post-rape examination only to learn that her medical evidence was destroyed so her attacker escaped prosecution. Police incompetence is an argument against a universal database, not for it.
The Human Rights Act protects our privacy but allows necessary, proportionate and lawful intrusion. So keep the samples of those under investigation and those convicted (even before DNA technology)of serious offences to which DNA is relevant. Obvious examples are sexual and violent crimes and burglary. That's far more practical than placing the entire population on a suspect database.
Common values and common sense have left Britain the world's oldest unbroken democracy. It's in our DNA.
* Shami Chakrabarti is Director of Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties
Reader views (3)
If it will help the Police,to catch some of the very weird and twisted individuals living amongst us,you can have my DNA anytime, I thought Chakrabarti would have something to say.
- David., Chertsey.UK., 31/03/2009 15:38
Report abuse
I feel for Sally Anns mother, And I have never agreed with a word Shami Chakrabarti has said, Although I like the fact she can speak her mind. But two things, 1: If I was adopted and my DNA as an innocent person got in the wrong hands I wouldn't want to find out who my parents were and 2: If I had a disease i didn't want my family to know about, through the database again in the wrong hands they could find out.
Saying that i appreciate dna of everyone would lead to a fall in crime, but we have to pay certain cases of people going free for our liberty. I'm still in favour of nearly all of the new laws to tackle crime though
- John P Reid, london, 31/03/2009 14:49
Report abuse
Thank you for this balanced argument. The dangers of creating a universal DNA database are very hard to predict, or even to imagine, but that doesn't mean they are fanciful.
- Bloke, London, 31/03/2009 13:46
Report abuse
