cc wrote:Dear panzer,
We just analysed the DNA data you provided at birth, and we have determined that you have a high risk of cancer and are incredibly stupid. Because you are likely to die young and are an inherent moron, we will be unable to accept your application for a job/loan/unemployment benefit/scholarship/insurance/whatever.
Yours sincerely,
The UK government/your future employer/...
panzer wrote:In your manifesto I agree with most of the things you put in, the only thing I really disagree with is the part about DNA. I think once you have a sample it should stay in the records as it might be able to help in future investigations on any future crimes.
My view is that everyone DNA should be recorded and taken a birth. I can see why this is aganist peoples privacy but to me it make it easier for criminals to be caught and narrow down the people who are resposable for murders.
The advantages out way the disadvantages in my opinion.
azrael wrote:It doesn't matter how long the odds are, when the false positive happens it happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clar ... l_evidence
cc wrote:If there is a DNA database, full CCTV coverage, full communications monitoring and guards with guns patrolling the streets, the fight is already lost!
apricot wrote:azrael wrote:It doesn't matter how long the odds are, when the false positive happens it happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clar ... l_evidence
under the same reasoning eyewitness testimony shouldn't be used especially as how inaccurate it is.
Pete wrote:That is to say that where the probability where there is a random chance of a match of 1 in 3 million (0.0000003%), this is not the chance that the crime was committed by someone other than the accused. Rather we must divide the into that the population. Given the UK population of approx. 60million, this gives 20 matches. This means that the chance of someone other than the defendent committing the crime (given no other evidence) is not 1 in 3 million, but 19 in 20(95%), or just a 5% chance of guilt.
cabalamat wrote:Pete wrote:That is to say that where the probability where there is a random chance of a match of 1 in 3 million (0.0000003%), this is not the chance that the crime was committed by someone other than the accused. Rather we must divide the into that the population. Given the UK population of approx. 60million, this gives 20 matches. This means that the chance of someone other than the defendent committing the crime (given no other evidence) is not 1 in 3 million, but 19 in 20(95%), or just a 5% chance of guilt.
You're right. Personally I think Bayes' Theorem should be standard part of the maths curriculum.
Finlay_A wrote:cabalamat wrote:Pete wrote:That is to say that where the probability where there is a random chance of a match of 1 in 3 million (0.0000003%), this is not the chance that the crime was committed by someone other than the accused. Rather we must divide the into that the population. Given the UK population of approx. 60million, this gives 20 matches. This means that the chance of someone other than the defendent committing the crime (given no other evidence) is not 1 in 3 million, but 19 in 20(95%), or just a 5% chance of guilt.
You're right. Personally I think Bayes' Theorem should be standard part of the maths curriculum.
It is. The problem is that maths is taughts in school as per "memorize and regurgitate this formula" method, so the pupils don't really learn how counter-intuitive maths can be until they get to uni
Pete wrote:The problem is that Jurors "understand" DNA (and fingerprints)
Return to Questions for the Party
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest