Morning:
6°c
Gordon Brown today attacked David Cameron's plans to scrap the DNA database, saying rapists would get off.
He cited the case of Jeremiah Sheridan who raped a wheelchair-bound cerebral palsy sufferer in her home 19 years ago and was last year convicted thanks to DNA samples.
“Next time you hear somebody question the value of retaining DNA profiles from those arrested but not convicted, remember Jeremiah Sheridan,” he said. “Most of all remember the innocent woman he attacked.”
Speaking to police in Reading, he also accused the Tory leader over his use of crime statistics, saying: “You don't tackle the fear of crime by cultivating it, by ramping up a public sense of panic, by abusing the figures and claiming our society is broken.”
The Prime Minister promised to give the victims of serious anti-social behaviour a “guarantee of protection”. He said these victims should be helped to obtain legal injunctions, with the costs paid by the agencies who had let them down.
Reader views (11)
If you believed Brown and his insistance that the Tory's will stop this and that, cannot be trusted with the running of the countries finances, it as if the Tory party all run around with black hoods on, the bogeymen and our lilly-white Brown is our only saviour, what a dough nut.
- Terry, london, 02/03/2010 15:12
Report abuse
Another "Gormles" argument, the logical conclusion of which is to obtain DNA samples of all residents of and visitors to the UK. Our wannastay Prime Minister knows of course that such a move would be politically unacceptable and impossible to sneak on to the Statute Book in the manner of the law that permits the retention of samples obtained from all arrested irrespective of their guilt or innocence.
It appears therefore that Mr Brown lacks not only an understanding of the fundamentals of fredom under the law, but the courage of his convictions.
I'm not sure Dodgy Dave is to be entirely trusted on this one either. After his Lisbon Treaty climbdown (We shall not let the matter rest!) it seems entirely possible that once in office, a compelling reasson would be found to maintain the current policy.
- John C, Ashtead, UK, 02/03/2010 10:31
Report abuse
I'm all for a DNA database one for convicted criminals or people under suspicion of a crime, if they are found not to have committed this crime the DNA sample should be destroyed.
If people are willing to provided a DNA sample then it should be a option. All members of the military, police, fireman and people in public office should be on a DNA data base until as such time they leave these positions/jobs.
- Lance Johnson, Canterbury, Kent, 02/03/2010 09:54
Report abuse
Actually, Brian G, the situation has changed with regards to fingerprints. Fingerprints, like DNA, are now retained indefinitely by default. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled against that. There has been no effort by the Home Offfice to change it at all - DNA is much more emotive.
Mr Brown appears to be mirepresenting pretty much everything about the issue as he is reported above. No-one is suggesting abolishing the DNA database as it relates to crime-scene samples. What civil liberties campaigners want is restrictions on keeping data about people without a good reason to do so.
What beggars belief is Brown saying "You don't tackle the fear of crime by cultivating it, by ramping up a public sense of panic," at the same time as doing precisely the same thing using horror stories to justify his own policy.
- Guy Herbert (General Secretary, No2id), London, 02/03/2010 06:51
Report abuse
More emotional blackmail - designed purely to make people feel guilty about objecting to the further erosion of our freedoms and liberties.
The majority of violent crimes in this country are 'domestic' related crimes, so what next to solve that? CCTV in all our living rooms? After all, surely only the guilty would object...
It is the responsibility of the state to protect the public where REASONABLY possible - and to catch and punish the perpetrators of crime where it is not.
It is NOT the responsibility of the state to protect the public 'at all costs', (an impossibility) and it is NOT the right of the state to remove the presumption of innocence and all our freedoms and liberties in their attempt to catch criminals.
Likewise, it is not our public obligation to give up our rights and freedoms simply to make government life easier and more convenient.
Perhaps if they put as much effort and resources into building new prisons as they do in trying to dominate every facet of our lives, then maybe there wouldn't be such a high 'need' for a DNA database in the first place - as the phrase 'repeat offender' would become a thing of the past...
- John T, London, 01/03/2010 20:47
Report abuse
Last May, the Tories pledged to move to the Scottish system - keep samples only of convicted criminals and (for five years) those charged with serious sexual offences. Others not convicted would have any samples taken destroyed.
Big Brother Brown might like to act tough for public consuimption but he fools no-one. We know that his party's pussy-footing on border controls and crime have made Britain a soft touch for violent thugs and rapists.
- Jools, London, 01/03/2010 20:07
Report abuse
Quoting the Yorkshire Post: In 2005 the father-of-four's past began to catch up with him. His DNA was taken when he was arrested for a public order offence by Cambridgeshire Police and, although he gave the officers false details, it was soon established he was Jeremiah Sheridan. Does not say if he was convicted of that offence but from using google he has prior convictions.
What does this case have to do with an unconvicted person's DNA on the database that had already been checked against any outstanding crimes where the person has been cleared.
Sheridan is a convicted criminal. This is a matter of fact so his DNA should be on file anyway. To use a convicted criminal to argue for the retention of an unconvited persons DNA is absolutely ridiculous. Recent news reports suggest many of the rapist scum in prison are not even on this system and as we know the police themselves refuse to go on it. Why is this, nothing to fear or double standards?
- Rocket Science, Sutton, 01/03/2010 18:18
Report abuse
David Cameron has never said he wants to scrap the DNA database. This is typical Nu Labour smear tactics, trying to create the impression that the opposition has said something which it has not.
What the Tories want to do, is to remove the many people who have never been convicted of a crime from that database. Convicted rapists, even convicted flashers, will stay in it. Those who were wrongfully arrested and never charged with anything, or sampled "for elimination purposes", will at last be removed.
Funny that they want to get everyone into the DNA database by lying and deception, isn't it? Why don't they just add to their election manifesto, that they want to register the entire population in the DNA database? It wouldn't even cost much extra - just collect a few hairs at the same time as your fingerprints and retina scans, when you are rounded up to receive your compulsory UK subject "permission to be alive" ID card, microchip and SS (social security) tattoo.
- Nigel, London, 01/03/2010 17:16
Report abuse
No doubt scrapping the KGB led to an increase in crime in Russia but was it the wrong thing to do?
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 01/03/2010 16:51
Report abuse
>The case for keeping DNA samples (of innocent people) > is remarkably thin.
Not to mention actually illegal under EU law, not to mention that the UK Government has already tried this argument in an EU court and been laughed out. Whats not so laughable is that this government is so keen on databases and centrally micro contolling your life in every way that they simply cannot be trusted with any of our information or DNA. What records they don't abuse they lose into the wild blue yonder.
Truly the worst of all possible governments. Preachy big statist but totally incompetant with it.
- Ethan, EUSSR, 01/03/2010 16:35
Report abuse
DNA is there to assist the police in the detection of crime. If you look at all these cases the individuals concerned were already suspects as a result of routine investigative work. DNA merely helped in the convictions; but were not the sole piece of evidence against the accused. Fingerprints were once regarded in the same vein as DNA; but no one sought to keep the fingerprints of innocent people. If you were found not guilty or not proceeded against you had an automatic right to have your fingerprints destroyed in front of you. So why is it necessary to keep the DNA of totally innocent individuals for 6 years? The case for keeping DNA samples is remarkably thin. I am afraid it is Brown who is misusing data - but then that hasn`t stopped before.
- Brian G, Norfolk Gorleston, 01/03/2010 16:16
Report abuse
