h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why would he care how a relational database works?

One interesting positive side-effect of having a national DNA database would be seeing how accurate the current assumptions about the lack of correlation between various DNA markers really are.
If it turned out that there actually were several billion-to-one-against matches between different people, it might provide food for thought.

But to verify that you would have to run a check of every new entry against the entire database and keep a separate table of cross matches. What's the betting that the table of cross-matches doesn't go under public scrutiny? There's no way you would be allowed to know how many let alone who had a cross match on your DNA.

Does anyone know how the DNA cross match between the Millie case and the burglary at a church in Yorkshire (?) has turned out?

I'm not saying I'm in favour of a database, just that it would be interesting from a scientific point of view to see how accurate forecasts about individuality actually are.

In practice, if the database were to be used for criminal detaction, it might be necessary to try and cross-match all the entries anyway to guard against the possibility that someone gets another person to give a sample in their name if they fear they might be matched against existing forensic information.

the thing is, when people offend for the first time, and dna evidence is found at the scene, you cannot convict, becuase there is no info on record, wheras if dna was taken at birth, crime would be solved much quicker, saving time, resources and money. not saying its a good idea, just putting fwd a point of view

Arwen - That's positive thinking. I like it.

Arwen, others here believe that your suggestion is maybe a little naive.

DNA "fingerprinting" is only a little more accurate than actual fingerprinting.

People have been arrested, tried and convicted wrongly on partial fingerprint evidence.

What would you say to be the first miscarriage of justice based on DNA "fingerprint" evidence? Would their ordeal be justifiable?

Madent
Have you read the whole thread yet ???
Most of what you say has already been said.
I will ask you a naive question.
Was your birth registered and Why ?
Was it because you were likely to become a criminal ?

No, but nobody can identify you from your birth certificate...

Births are registered to provide new-borns with protection under UK and EU law, beginning with the establishment of their legal identity (name), legal residence (home) and legal guardians (parents).

As to the backlog, no. In a RL conversation would you refuse to continue a debate with a new-comer to a conversation, or refuse to hold another separate debate with a new audience? IF I get the time, I MAY read some of the backlog, but that is my choice.

Exactly Bob but they should be able to seeing that is required for so many things.
Madent - I have been subscribed to the thread since I started it as part of my h2g2 learning curve way back when.
If by any chance you raise a point that hasn't been already discussed I will gladly join in. In RL do conversations usually go on for several weeks and don't people introduce themselves.. I have the right to remain silent.

You failed to introduce yourself too ...

Most researchers don't introduce themselves, afterall, one click on their name and you can see their home page, where hopefully they do introduce themselves.

You assume that I am opposed to ID cards, which just makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

I am open to the concept, but I need convincing and your ivory tower attitude (which I must admit I have probably provoked ) isn't helping.

Whilst I appreciate people wishing that others had read the backlog, to some extent, whether someone has done so or not may be of less relevance than it may at first appear, especially in threads where the main topic is as much a matter of opinion as of fact.

I have read all the postings pretty much as soon as they were made, but some of those postings are now rather old, and I don't re-read the thread each time before I post. Some repetition is therefore possible, but then again, phrasing a similar position in a different way may help other people to understand one's position.

hey, like i said, its just a point of view. i dont claim to be an expert on dna evidence, and i dont think you can convict solely on it. its already used in court cases, and i just think it would help if anybody could be matched, not just people with previous, as people can go out and murder someone if theyve never committed before. the system at the moment is biased towards convicting people with previous, as its easier because their data is on record, and i dont think thats particularly fair.

Madent.
Things that I have learned from this thread.
If you jump into a long standing conversation you could.
1-Introduce yourself or acknowledge others in the immediate vicinity.
2-Make an appropriate address to the one you are responding to.
3-Follow guide lines by pressing the reply button for the post that you want to reply to.
You could of course be an and do all three.
It may be better if we direct this issue to your space F75290?thread=247614

Arwen

It still won't be fair if all it leads to is a situation where the police have say 2 DNA matches, one of which is the criminal's (who has a cast iron alibi) and the other is innocent with no way to prove it.

"i dont think you can convict solely on it"

Well, there are documented miscarriages of justice based solely on expert testimony regarding any number of subjects, from cause of death (as in the recent release of Sally Clark) through to conviction for burglary based on a partial thumbprint of someone with no previous. It seems it is sufficient to convict solely on it.

You are quite right, finding a DNA match might be helpful, but you would have to disclose all of the matches to the court, the defense and the prosecution. To do otherwise would prejudice the trial.

I think the problem I have here is that there is a public perception that forensic evidence is infallible. "There's a fingerprint so he's guilty." In reality we are finding that to be a dangerous point of view. Jurors need to examine the evidence for themselves and even question it. The lawyers on both sides also need access to other experts to be able to challenge expert testimony properly.

But then there is the "no smoke without fire" contingent. Suppose there are 2 DNA matches and the police arrest both "suspects". The merest association with a sexual offence can destroy a person's life entirely, including divorce, lynching, unemployment and in some case suicide.

Providing this type of data to the police also requires greater maturity in our society as a whole in how we react to the results.

The law says innocent until proven guilty. People can be a different matter.

i agree there is a stroong feeling that forensic evidence is infallible, and people are a problem. i was talking about this recently with some friends, and we were discussing whether jurys should be chosen differently. currently, no-one in the law profession is allowed to sit on a jury. but if they know about the law, they will see when counsel are dodging issues, and will presumable generally be more clued up. a friend also said she thought that only people with 'high flying' jobs, such as managers should be allowed to sit, on the grounds that they will generally be more intelligent. but i know quite a few people who are v intelligent, but have absolutely no common sense. some trials now are just heard by a judge, would this be better? he/she will have been legally trained, with a great deal of experience (you have to work in the law profession for ages, being a barrister, stipendiary magistrate and part time judge before you can get a full time judiciary position). but then you are only getting one persons point of view. in a mags court there are 3 people, but none of them have had legal training. how about a jury where half the people have been chosen at random, and the other half have also been chosen at random, but from professions like the police, medical services or law? that would possibly work better, but it is a v difficult issue.

It's worse than I thought with those Malaysian ID cards, they've gone and made a song about them.

arwen

I would have liked to have heard the discussion

I have also talked about similar things with friends and we invariably come to a conclusion that there is no particular make-up of a jury that we would prefer over that which we currently have. Any sort of selection process which requires qualifications, legal experience, etc would lead to some form of bias in the jury.

The kinds of offence heard before either magistrates or judges without a jury are relatively minor and revolve around fairly simple evidence.

"Was he speeding officer?"
"Well we have this photograph from the speed camera, your honour, which just happens to show the drivers face ..."

IMO all that is required is that the jury receive better direction from the judge as to the value of the "expert" testimony. The court should also maybe have the power to appoint additional experts to review the evidence in open court and provide a second or even third opinion as to the worth of the evidence.

The penalty for the deliberate misrepresentation of evidence by an expert witness shuold also be severe.

Well, as they say for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Or something like that.