DNA Testing

#1
Last night at 6.30pm a 17 year old girl was raped and stabbed behind our offices.

The entire place has been cordoned off and we are only here because we need to access our place of work.

We have been discussing the pending questioning for our personnel, incase anyone saw/hear anything and the subject of DNA testing has come up.

Two male members of our office have strongly said they would refuse to give a swab as it 'is an infringement of their human rights'. I subsequently have gone ballistic, as I think thats the most bullsh it reason ever and everyone should give one no questions asked.

These two guys say I am wrong.....what is the opinion of the ARRSE members?
 
#2
Personally i would give one just to help eliminate me from enquiry, but i can see where the guys are coming from. Maybe they feel worried that they might become guilty by association, or maybe they are just paranoid.

Hope the girls ok.
 
#4
I too would quite happily offer my spit, but I can see the Liberty angle too. DNA records on convicted crims is one thing, but on every Joe Bloggs is something else.
 
#5
On an estate where I use to live we had a series of rapes and assaults, Every male living on the estate was interviewed and asked to give a DNA sample. I did not see this as an infringment of my rights I wsaw this in assisting the police in catching the cnut. You are not wrong , if it was their daughter, wife, partner they would expect everybody to do what they can
 
#6
I would give a swab without question, but as others have said i can see why people have a problem with it. The arguement will always be that if you had no part in the crime you should give a swab (the last thing this poor girl needs is someone standing in the way of the investigation), but i also believe that people should have the right to withhold their genetic information if they so wish.

Hope this poor girl pulls through.

Boney
 
#7
good point bob, and exactly what i was gonna say. all you have to do is put yourself in the position of it being one of your loved ones and then try and justify not giving a sample. the human rights angle is a valid one also, but anyone who has even had a blood test is surely on some database somewhere. lets face it though, anyone wanting to continue travelling is, at this rate, gonna be giving all kinds of information soon enough anyway, sadly we seem to be unable to escape this short of moving to the highlands of scotland, living in a cave and never travelling outside our caves other than to get food & drink!
hope they find the scum that did this. scary place we all live in these days (and i'm not referring just to the attack either)
 
#8
Awol said:
I too would quite happily offer my spit, but I can see the Liberty angle too. DNA records on convicted crims is one thing, but on every Joe Bloggs is something else.
after the investigation was over I, along with all the blokes that gave a sample, was invited along to either collect it and destroy it myself, or watch the police destroy it, either way not on your records.
 
#9
I tend to disagree with it as it's like being asked to prove you are innocent when it's down to the Police to prove otherwise-additionally my DNA won't help so what's the point? It's essentially saying my word is not good enough. Then again if it was my child/family/friend I would not be.

Is all DNA 'evidence' from tests retained now-only only from convicts? I know it was proposed at one point.

It's a bit like some supermarkets on the continent that I've been in where it's expected that you either leave all bags in lockers or open them up for the sales assistant to look in to prove that you've not stolen anything.. So now everyone is a suspect. :roll:
 
#10
TA_sig said:
I tend to disagree with it as it's like being asked to prove you are innocent when it's down to the Police to prove otherwise-additionally my DNA won't help so what's the point? It's essentially saying my word is not good enough. Then again if it was my child/family/friend I would not be.

Is all DNA 'evidence' from tests retained now-only only from convicts? I know it was proposed at one point.

It's a bit like some supermarkets on the continent that I've been in where it's expected that you either leave all bags in lockers or open them up for the sales assistant to look in to prove that you've not stolen anything.. So now everyone is a suspect. :roll:
While I see your point, it's simply a reflection of the world we live in. They way I see it, if you've done nothing wrong - what do you have to worry about?

As for human rights, where were this poor girls human rights last night? She had a right not to be raped and almost stabbed to death. Anyone who obstructs the path to catching her attacker is just pig headed and selfish.

Rant over. Out.
 
#11
Since the government already has all my information from military service, security clearances, etc., I would give a sample. If I was not already in the system, I would think twice.

So all the males in the building are being tested just because they work next to the crime scene?

Good luck to the girl.
 
#12
TA_sig said:
I tend to disagree with it as it's like being asked to prove you are innocent when it's down to the Police to prove otherwise-additionally my DNA won't help so what's the point? It's essentially saying my word is not good enough. Then again if it was my child/family/friend I would not be.

Is all DNA 'evidence' from tests retained now-only only from convicts? I know it was proposed at one point.

It's a bit like some supermarkets on the continent that I've been in where it's expected that you either leave all bags in lockers or open them up for the sales assistant to look in to prove that you've not stolen anything.. So now everyone is a suspect. :roll:
It wouldnt worry me about proving my innocence, its probably the quickest way for the police to eliminate people and it would help the victim.

I do worry about the evidence. Essex bob says that all evidence is destroyed, but it worries me non the less. You just dont know whats happened to it along the way. I'm not worried about being eliminated in a criminal investigation, but if i start getting refused life insurance because i'm genetically prone to some sort of disease i would worry. Genetic data is extremely sensitive, and can the police and their sub contracted laboritorys guarantee its safety? I doubt it. If this information is electronically stored, its just a matter of time before its stolen or sold by someone.

MB, will you keep us all posted on whether this girl pulls through ok?


Boney
 
#13
Corporal said:
Since the government already has all my information from military service, security clearances, etc., I would give a sample. If I was not already in the system, I would think twice.

So all the males in the building are being tested just because they work next to the crime scene?

Good luck to the girl.
No Corps, it began as a hypothetical question, as it may be neccessary at some point. We are more like to begin witness staements, as we are situated in the middle of parkland and we are the only building on it. The attack happened right behind our building literally 15 minutes after most of us had left.
 
#14
boney_m said:
TA_sig said:
I tend to disagree with it as it's like being asked to prove you are innocent when it's down to the Police to prove otherwise-additionally my DNA won't help so what's the point? It's essentially saying my word is not good enough. Then again if it was my child/family/friend I would not be.

Is all DNA 'evidence' from tests retained now-only only from convicts? I know it was proposed at one point.

It's a bit like some supermarkets on the continent that I've been in where it's expected that you either leave all bags in lockers or open them up for the sales assistant to look in to prove that you've not stolen anything.. So now everyone is a suspect. :roll:
It wouldnt worry me about proving my innocence, its probably the quickest way for the police to eliminate people and it would help the victim.

I do worry about the evidence. Essex bob says that all evidence is destroyed, but it worries me non the less. You just dont know whats happened to it along the way. I'm not worried about being eliminated in a criminal investigation, but if i start getting refused life insurance because i'm genetically prone to some sort of disease i would worry. Genetic data is extremely sensitive, and can the police and their sub contracted laboritorys guarantee its safety? I doubt it. If this information is electronically stored, its just a matter of time before its stolen or sold by someone.

MB, will you keep us all posted on whether this girl pulls through ok?


Boney
Yes of course, although I expect it will be on the national news today at some point. Will keep you posted though. x
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#15
Moodybitch said:
......

They way I see it, if you've done nothing wrong - what do you have to worry about?

......
I'm afraid that line is what The Glorious Leader has based most of his offensive legislation on. :evil:

Having said that, I'd still definitely give a swab.
 
#16
I believe that in some circumstances a senior police officer can authorise the taking of a sample from an individual who refuses to give it voluntarily, provided there is reasonable cause, such as him being a suspect.

I cannot imagine why anyone would refuse to provide a specimen for elimination purposes, though I would expect it to be used only for that purpose and for it subsequently to be destroyed.
 
#20
TA_sig said:
If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about-so you won't mind if we monitor your emails/phone calls and watch you 24/7 etc.. Oh wait that happens anyway-more or less. Might as well add a genetic databank to that as well.
We are talking about assisting a rape and potential murder case here. This is what I was talking abut - not justifying all 'big brother' activity.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Auld-Yin The Book Club 2
_scranbag The Intelligence Cell 1
Edwardian Fred The Science Forum 36

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top