Two men arrested but later cleared, and who therefore have no criminal record, are to seek a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) about whether it is lawful for their DNA profiles to be retained on the UK's national database. One of them, referred to only as "S", was charged with attempted robbery when he was 11 years old. He was acquitted. His DNA is still on the database.
Currently, and in the wake of convictions for the Ipswich murders and the killing of Sally Anne Bowman, much of the discussion centres around the utility of such a database for law enforcement purposes. However, the missing analytical data is this: of those people who are identified using their DNA database record, and subsequently convicted, how many were added to the database in the first place for some reason other than being convicted of an offence? In other words, in how many cases does the recording of an innocent person's DNA lead to their subsequent identification and conviction?
It's important to have that analytical data, because the ECHR will want to decide whether it is proportionate to keep a permanent record of the DNA of innocent citizens.
As we heard a few weeks ago, Lord Justice Sedley is of the view that everyone should be in the database, because the current state of affairs is "indefensible" (or in the words of David Davis, "arbitrary and erratic"). It will be interesting to see whether the ECHR reaches the same conclusion, given the same input.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}
An 11-year-old boy who might have grown up to become a violent criminal, but became a respectable member of society - obviously this was because his DNA was on the police database, so he knew he'd get caught. Fantastic deterrent effect.
Posted by Richard Veryard on February 27, 2008 at 01:24 PM GMT+00:00 #
Mmmm... the spectre of panoptical accountability. I think my repsonse to any MP who suggests that would be "after you...".
I can't recall a more powerful system of 'behavioural control through implied guilt' since the invention of the Catholic church. It's no wonder Tony converted.
Which raises the question: when he did so, do you suppose he asked for his previous convictions to be taken into account?
Posted by Robin Wilton on February 27, 2008 at 02:05 PM GMT+00:00 #