I dissagree with your policies on DNA

A forum for people to voice their opinion, ask us questions, debate and discuss. Please use the search bar to see if a question has been raised and discussed before.

I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Panzer » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:50 am

In your manifesto I agree with most of the things you put in, the only thing I really dissagree 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.
Panzer
Swabbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby cc » Sun Jun 20, 2010 12:25 pm

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/...
cc
Swashbuckler
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:00 am

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby rancidpunk » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:00 pm

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/...


:D
- No copyright, Piratpartiet, 1983 -
User avatar
rancidpunk
Terror of the High Seas
 
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 12:02 pm
Location: Portsmouth

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Finlay_A » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:33 pm

^^This,

Also, it does away with the whole presumtion of innocence thing, which I'm quite fond of. It is another of many ways in which every citizen is treated as a suspect. See also excessive CCTV, monitoring internet traffic, etc.

Not to mention it makes it A LOT easier to frame innocent people.
Stood for Westminster, Holyrood and Council elections in Glasgow
"Don't mind the potatoes, but the soup is good!"
User avatar
Finlay_A
PPUK Candidate
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:07 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby azrael » Sun Jun 20, 2010 1:35 pm

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.


The problem, panzer, is that the innocent shouldn't need to prove their innocence, the legal system needs to prove someone's guilt. I really don't support the notion that the innocent have nothing to hide and therefore should have no privacy. The innocent do have things to hide without being criminals. I might want to hide the fact that I am genetically predisposed to cancer. I might want to hide the fact that I borrow teen vampire romance novels from the library (I don't, I swear I don't!).

On DNA samples specifically, what is the rate of error? I'm not sure off the top of my head, but let's assume it is incredibly low. No matter how low the error rate is, surely the chance of a mistake increases with the more samples on record. Let's look at the situation where DNA records are kept from anyone every arrested, even if they were later found innocent. A DNA sample from a crime gets matched against a database off 1000 samples, or 1000000 samples, and this particular DNA is not on record, there is more chance of a false positive when there is a bigger database matched against. When in a court of law talking about error rates, the jury will think "well there might be a mistake, but the DNA was on record, so the person is a criminal anyway, so they probably did this too". So by keeping innocent people's DNA on record you increase the chances of mistakes, and you prejudice jury's against possibly innocent people.

Your answer might be to put everyone on the database, to reduce the assumption that being on the DB means you are a criminal. What happens when we share that DB with the rest of the world and they do likewise? You then have billions of samples to match against - what's the chance of a false positive then? When searching for needles in haystacks, we do not want bigger haystacks!
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby apricot » Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:31 pm

A lot of the problems suggested take common sense, I mean if you DNA matches someone in brazil it's unlikley the brazillian would be accused of the crime as it would be impossibe for him to commit a crime.

The amount of DNA analysed by forensics is actually only a small fraction of the total human genome do it would be difficult and expensive for everyones DNA to be properly analysed. The means specific markers must be searched for. Even with such a limited scope I think the odds of a false positive are 2 billion to 1 , plus any identical twins you have.

So there is a small chance of being falsley accused if anyone has studied psychology you would know how inaccurate eye witness testimony is. DNA databases have been used in Greenland (or it nay be Iceland) with great results in terms of health benefits... I'll have a look tommorow for some more specifics as it would be an interesting case study.

However I do agree DNA evidence shouldn't be the be all and end all of criminal conviction and circumstantial DNA matches do not equal a guilty criminal
apricot
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Dudley , West Midlands

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby azrael » Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:46 pm

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
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Panzer » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:10 pm

Nothing is going to be 100% perfect, people have been accused of crimes they have not done without DNA evidence. And about the jury been prejudice is down to there judgement not because the samples are on record
Panzer
Swabbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby apricot » Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:59 pm

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.
apricot
Sword Sharpener
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Dudley , West Midlands

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby cc » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:28 pm

If we don't have a national fingerprint database, why should we have a national DNA database? Has the right to privacy suddenly gone out of fashion? Why did the people who wrote the Human Rights declaration take the effort to put in the privacy clauses? Why did they think privacy is important?

Here's something different: What if some day 1984 becomes reality and we need to turn to resistance/guerrilla warfare to save ourselves from our own government? If there is a DNA database, full CCTV coverage, full communications monitoring and guards with guns patrolling the streets, the fight is already lost! Sure, that eventuality seems particularly distant right now... but Hitler was massacring people just a measly 65 years ago. Who knows what the world will be like 65 years from now?
cc
Swashbuckler
 
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:00 am

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Finlay_A » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:56 pm

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!


We'll find a way around that I'm sure :)
Stood for Westminster, Holyrood and Council elections in Glasgow
"Don't mind the potatoes, but the soup is good!"
User avatar
Finlay_A
PPUK Candidate
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:07 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby azrael » Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:47 pm

Here's another one for maths fans...

If DNA profile samples from all unsolved crimes are stored in one database, and every person in the UK has their DNA profile stored in a second database, and every couple of days the databases are matched off against each other, what are the chances of someone being accused of committing a crime that occurred before they were born?
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Finlay_A » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:30 pm

I'll get to work on azrael's maths homework later tonight :) I'm off uni for summer but might as well have some fun

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.


The thing about eyewitness testimony, as opposed to DNA, is the perception of accuracy. Most people, from watching thhings like CSI, assume that DNA evidence is completely infallible. When I say "most people" this could mean the politicians that write the laws as well as the jurors that pass verdicts. Given the last government's record on science, and I have no reason to believe the next will be any better, this is quite worrying.

With witness testimony however, the perception matches the truth (or close enough), probably because most people can understand it. In the case of a false positive: with witness testimony this probably wouldn't convict an innocent person (definitely not by itself); however in the eyes of the jury a DNA match might be convincing enough.
Stood for Westminster, Holyrood and Council elections in Glasgow
"Don't mind the potatoes, but the soup is good!"
User avatar
Finlay_A
PPUK Candidate
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:07 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Pete » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:27 pm

The problem is that Jurors "understand" DNA (and fingerprints)

However the other problem is (and this is John's post in tl;dr) that p(Positive Match) is not equal to p(Positive Match|Innocent)

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.

For anyone interested in this and more statistical joy (Such as how a possitive HIV test is only right about 50% of the time) I highly recommend Reckoning with Risk by Gerd Gigerenzer.
Peter Liddell
User avatar
Pete
1st Mate
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby azrael » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:11 pm

And you all thought this thread was dead, but couldn't help posting this when I read it a moment ago

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... ?full=true
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby cabalamat » Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:32 pm

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.
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Finlay_A » Fri Aug 20, 2010 4:50 pm

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 :shock:
Stood for Westminster, Holyrood and Council elections in Glasgow
"Don't mind the potatoes, but the soup is good!"
User avatar
Finlay_A
PPUK Candidate
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:07 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby cabalamat » Fri Aug 20, 2010 6:14 pm

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 :shock:


Sadly, a lot of subjects are taught like that in schools. The reason is a combination of (i) pressure to achieve exam results and (ii) exams that can be passed by rote memorizing rather than actually having to understand stuff.

For this reason, exams should concentrate on measuring people's understanding rather than their ability to memorize. This is particularly important when people are growing up into a society where any fact is only a Google search away.
Philip Hunt, <p.hunt@pirateparty.org.uk>.
User avatar
cabalamat
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby Dai777 » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:31 pm

The main trouble argument against a DNA database is first you have to be ruled in before you you can be ruled out. In other words while they are checking you out in the databse you are presumed to be the guilty suspect by DNA until it is checked and you are found not to be the guilty suspect. This turns habeas courpus on it's head you are guilty until proven innocent.
User avatar
Dai777
Swabbie
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:02 pm
Location: Swansea

Re: I dissagree with your policies on DNA

Postby ktetch » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:49 pm

How did I miss this thread?

Pete wrote:The problem is that Jurors "understand" DNA (and fingerprints)

The answer to that is 'they don't, actually'.
Forensic evidence has been vastly over-hyped as to it's evidential quality. And more importantly, it has been fixated in peoples minds that it can't be wrong - indeed it is near infallible - thanks to shows like CSI (and other police procedurals, but that's the worst one by far)

I'll highlight what was recently said about 'stop&Frisk' in NYC, that "it was reducing crime". You know what else reduces crime? Giving police the ability to raid your house and search it at any time, for no reason. That will solve a lot more crimes. Or how about you have to have a government monitored tag on you at all times?

The question is, do you want a society that is crime free, or do you want one that is worth living in?
Born in Liverpool, Live in the US
Former Head of the US Pirate Party, and Pirate Parties International. UK Pirate Party Governor
http://ktetch.co.uk
User avatar
ktetch
Party Governor
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:07 am
Location: Georgia, USA

Next

Return to Questions for the Party

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.