Should every UK citizen be made to give a DNA sample?

The pro DNA lobby argue, that because of the database, crimes are now being solved that went undetected for years, and if you are innocent, why worry, for only the guilty should be concerned? On the face of it, good solid sense, the argument is powerful.

If it means murderers, burglars, society’s dregs, rapists are caught before they are able to commit other crimes; surly, that must be a good thing! What sane civilised person could argue against the premise?

For only a slight erosion of our civil liberties, the greater good should override the liberties of the individual, for if it were your mother, or wife, or daughter, friend or relative who had been robbed, or raped, or killed, and it could have been avoided if DNA had been available to the police, the argument grows even stronger and takes great power into itself. Almost watertight, for it becomes personal to you, and it is then inside your front door, and it becomes almost impossible to argue against the premise that everyone should be forced to give a DNA sample.

Are you convinced yet?

Let’s go further. You are arrested. There are a few DNA samples taken from the crime site, yours included, and compared to the statuary database; unfortunately, there is other damming evidence against you; you are cautioned, charged, incarcerated. The Public Prosecutor believes they have enough evidence against you to secure a conviction. But someone else’s DNA also shows up on the database, showing that this person has committed this type of crime before, and upon further investigation it is proved that this other person is responsible. Without this information in the database, there would have been no further investigation and you could well have been convicted of a crime you hadn’t committed.  

Again, let’s say you had been tried and found innocent by your peers, yet still your DNA stays on file; indeed, everyone’s DNA is on file, for a sample of DNA is taken from every citizen, from every baby born and filed away for reference, It’s the law, a referendum said it could be so, you voted for it to happen, democracy in action. You, on behalf of your baby, everyone’s baby, the right of objection you have given away. A swab taken at birth, and kept until death, and beyond, and the database checked whenever the police are able to take a sample from a crime scene. This makes it easy for them.

That is, the police inform us, how many of the rapes and murders over the last few years have been solved. Cold case files are being opened, and to the police’s credit, quite a number have been solved. Notwithstanding, many injustices have become known due to DNA analysis, and wrong past decisions righted. Where it is proved that the person convicted of the crime could not have possibly committed the offence for which he or she had been incarcerated; indeed, look at the high profile cases of recent origin in the US and in the UK.

Valid compelling arguments that there should be a nationally held DNA database, if it saves just one life or stops one woman from being raped, or proves the innocence of an individual wrongly convicted of a crime; therefore, it must be right! Indeed, the police are part of our community, and if they say, it’s right for it to happen; surely, it must be right.

So should we run with it? If you are a law-abiding citizen, it will not make a bit of difference to you.

OR WILL IT?

I am all for protecting the public, and in a perfect world; I agree, and I would voice no objection, even applaud it as a good thing. But we don’t; civil liberties are important. We cannot risk further erosion of our individual rights, each chip taken of the block, moves us closer towards the totalitarian state.

Further, a recent ruling from the Court of Human Rights has rejected the UK government’s stance against keeping the DNA of innocent people, stating the Scottish Parliament has it about right.

Scotland keeps the DNA for three years from all samples taken, and then destroys them. Remember, we are talking about innocent people, guilty of no crime. You or I, or anyone could be stopped, taken to a Police Station, a DNA sample taken for committing the most basic of offences, speeding for example.

In this county, the last government tried to circumvent the European ruling, stating it proposed keeping DNA on file for up to 12 years on all samples taken, 12 years, for an innocent individual!

A person guilty of a crime needs to be caught and punished by society. There is no doubt about that. The law should apply equally to everyone, but please, let’s get some proportionality here. Good intention falls by the wayside when it comes to power and politics. Individuals are prone to self-interest, so we need law with liberty to protect us again our politicians, indeed, against ourselves.

As John Locke (1632-1704) stated:

 “All men are liable to error; and most men are, in many points by passion or interest, under temptation to it.”

Ah! I hear you say, but he lived a few centuries ago, not relevant today. Totalitarianism is paved with good intentions I argue a reply. A law is brought in to protect, and immediately it is abused.

Prove it you say!

Bins, dustbins, remember them! It’s still happening, Councils are using Terrorist Legislation to snoop, to convict people who place wrong recycling waste in waste-bins, and spy on people who have the audacity of putting their waste-bins out too early for collection. You guessed it. By using that piece of legislation designed exclusively, solely, so the government led us to believe, to protect us against terrorists.

A fine shower of lies I must say.

Where is proportionality? There is none, none whatsoever, only puffed up minor bureaucrats, flexing muscles, puffing chests, pointing fingers showing righteous indignation towards the rest of us.

"Look, look at me, I am here; I can; indeed, I will, for I’m in charge."

Showing no sense, in fact, they spoil it for the rest of us as they abuse against our basic liberties by using a bloody big rock to crack a fragile egg. Minor offences should be dealt with using appropriate, proportional legislation.

Again, councils spying on parents using snoops, cameras, microphones to make sure parents live in the right catchment area for the school their children attend. The mind boggles at the cost alone.

Further, detention without charge, without trial, suspended rights, kept for months on end in incarceration. Torture—suspects may have been guilty – some probably are guilt—but one wasn’t (a British citizen, and I suspect there are a lot more) who had been detained in Guantánamo Bay Prison and tortured, so do we want to go there? And not only go there, but also make it legal to be so? Indeed, if there is a crime and the police asks for a DNA sample for elimination purposes, most people will agree knowing that afterwards the sample will be destroyed.

 Again, another example of self-interest and abuse, the MP’s expenses scandal, they did abuse, because they could, because they felt empowered by the power they held, because they thought no one was looking. Their argument, the system said we could do it, blame the system and not us: Pathetic!

Let’s sum up: Locke’s quote is as relevant today as it was then. Catching criminals, terrorists, rapists, murders, a must in a civilized society, and all the tools of technology should be at authority’s disposal, and in a perfect world, enforced giving of our DNA should pose no problem, but we don’t live in a perfect world, far from it.

We need balance. We need to balance the right of the individual against the power of the state, so if it means the police, army, any authority must work that little bit harder to keep us safe, so be it.

I admit, it’s not a perfect answer, far from perfect, but it’s better than the alternative, for it takes only a few psychotic people to tread on the many, and for the majority to do nothing.

Please think! Don’t stay on the fence. Don’t believe you can do nothing. Say enough is enough. Stop the power of state encroachment into our civil liberties. Don’t give your hard-earned power fought for by your ancestors easily away, either by apathy or by default. Think of Iran, women stoned for alleged adultery, and could be put to death because of it; in another country, women flogged for wearing trousers in public, just two examples of the power of the state in action.

Don’t go there! We can change decisions; Joanna Lumley proved that with the Ghurkhas.

Any views