DNA pioneer concerned about national database
Posted on Friday, April 17th, 2009 by Home Office WatchCategory: DNA
The pioneer of genetic fingerprinting, Professor Sir Alec Jeffries, has said that the Government is risking public support for the national DNA database by holding innocent people’s records.
Professor Jeffries told the Guardian,
“I have significant concerns there [about the size of the database]. That database is currently populated by an unknown number of entirely innocent people. It is not possible to get an accurate number but it appears to be hundreds of thousands.
“My view is very clear that if you have been convicted of a crime then you owe it to society to be retained on that database for catching in the future should you reoffend. But the retention of entirely innocent people is a whole different issue. There is a sort of presumption here that if they haven’t committed any crime now, then they will in the future.”
Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary said,
“It demonstrates how out of touch the Government is with public opinion when the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has to tell them how unfair the DNA database is.
“It is unacceptable for the state to store the DNA of innocent people. The European Court agrees, Professor Jeffreys agrees and the public agrees. The Government must bring forward concrete proposals to remove the DNA of those that have done nothing wrong.
“Professor Jeffreys is also right to point out that the DNA database is not the flawless crime-fighting tool ministers would have us believe.”
Please help our campaign to protect innocent people’s DNA by encouraging friends and family to sign our petition at: http://ourcampaign.org.uk/dna
Related posts:
April 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I think DNA is the best thing going thats how it got comform with my little gairl. so yes its the best.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Yes, probably people will not agree with the DNA database, but I think it is necessary for solving crimes.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
The DNA database is excellent if used as intended i.e. to record DNA of convicted felons - no suspected or casual collections - and any such should be removed.
We are sleepwaling into an invasive state which threatens the freedom of us all. A wake up call is needed.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:31 am
I don’t think that DNA should be kept on a data base of innocent people that I feel is a infringement of our human rights. If I am innocent why should they have my DNA on file. It is a good thing to have for the criminals and to show perternety. The way I see it if they have my DNA what else do they have. I know for a fact that once they have your DNA they also have a picture of you and also your fingerprints. What else do they have. I am sorry they don’t need it if the person is innocent.
May 10th, 2009 at 1:00 am
I think it is disgusting to believe that somebody with Simple Caution should be retained on the database for life. When given the ultimatum of choosing a Simple Caution for a minor offence, or having to take time off work to go to court, most people with no prior research of the DNA implications would accept the caution whether or not they committed the crime. It is madness to believe these people will re-offend based on this possibility. A caution is after-all, not a conviction.