DNA and crime.

[Godless Ray]

One last Hypothetical for the hell of it. ;)

A murder happens in the vicinity of where you live (or rape or whatever)

The Police make an announcment they want everyone to submit to a DNA test to exclude them from investigation.

You know nothing else about what will happen to the DNA after, or if a non donation will result in a visit by stormtroopers.

If it happened, would you?

Godless Ray

[His Noodly Appendage]

If they have a warrant, sure. Otherwise, they can go whistle.

Exactly the same as if they wanted to search my home or subpoena my bank records. I have nothing to hide, but you do not let them exceed the limits of their powers.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

I'm hanging with the Appendage on this one (no picture provided!).

Mass actions "for the children" and other excuses for a lack of thorough detective work to eliminate some suspects, profile the likely perpetrator, etc, are not effective.

Furthermore, given the delays (http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2008/06/27/john-tonge-centre-plagued-by-delays/)our main state DNA/foreniscs facility faces, I would regard such a move as counterproductive.

Then, we get to the matter of civil liberties...

[SchizoDeluxe]

Yeah I agree, they need a warrant or some kind of legal document to state that we must in fact submit to a dna test.

[davo]

interesting fact, I know someone extremely well that coded a database system for storing dna (they take 13 sections of DNA in a sample in the database), and this persons code was used to store the results of 3 provinces in China that required all citizens to provide DNA samples.

The interesting fact about DNA, is they don't need your DNA to actually prove that you did something under the law. Contrary to popular belief, DNA evidence does not require and exact match to have the ability to be strong legal evidence. They can cut down 'reasonable doubt' quite easily with just a sample of the populations DNA.

They can tell family from DNA, and especially in small regions etc, they can tell race, etc etc this can identify the person if the family or race is identified, at least narrow the margins massively.

Just a point about DNA 'evidence' that a lot of people miss.

[GenericBox]

Well I'm the opposite. I say why not. If it means in someway they can solve the crime quicker. I have nothing to hide. I am going to go one step further and argue that DNA information should be compulsory, either taken at birth or just made to go in and have it taken for us aged folk. Then, stored in a National database, and to even take the point another step, have DNA, amongst other information, stored on a National ID card, or at the very least passport. Then even when you go overseas, they have the information if they ever need it.

[Duffy]

Contrary to popular belief, DNA evidence does not require and exact match to have the ability to be strong legal evidence.

I belong to the school of 'if it helps and I've got nothing to hide, then why not'. Dad and his brothers were police officers and detectives and they would say public apathy and scare campaigns made their job so that more difficult. Not all law inforcement officers are corrupt and so often they have very little to go on without public help. I am saddened by the fact that some people are wronging accused but that shouldn't over shadow the tireless work done by our police to apprehend violent predators. In the news this week in Brissy a ring of pedophiles were caught grooming children through chat room sites. My thanks goes to the diligence of those officers and their dedication to protect the vulnerable and innocent. If I can help, I certainly would.

Anyway Davo, the DNA thing. I can't quite remember the exact percentage but in proving paternity cases the DNA match has to be around 90%(?) accurate. Is there a figure for legal cases? I'm surprised if anything lower would be acceptable.

[The Irreverent Mr Black]

[snip]
Anyway Davo, the DNA thing. I can't quite remember the exact percentage but in proving paternity cases the DNA match has to be around 90%(?) accurate. Is there a figure for legal cases? I'm surprised if anything lower would be acceptable.

It's reasonable for narrowing down family from family, but if a paternity case involved, for example, some of the umpteen sons of my crazy-breeder relative, AFAIK it would be possible to get wrong or inconclusive results.

[davo]

Anyway Davo, the DNA thing. I can't quite remember the exact percentage but in proving paternity cases the DNA match has to be around 90%(?) accurate. Is there a figure for legal cases? I'm surprised if anything lower would be acceptable.

Usually DNA evidence in a criminal case is presented, as is. There is no 'acceptable positive', it is up to the jury to decide reasonable doubt.

Depending on how it is presented to the jury, is the issue. I pointed out a video earlier of an oxford statistics professor that gave an example of how DNA evidence and statistics have been used before to wrongfully convict someone, and he also mentioned that there was plenty of cases of this. Was just pointing out, contrary to popular belief, DNA evidence is not a clear cut it was him/her situation, it is used in a variety of ways, and the common acceptance of the public is very much on the side that it is conclusive proof, which it is not, by itself. There is also different levels of DNA sampling. It's a complex thing DNA, not cut and dried.

Not saying it's not relevant, just saying that it's not infallible.

[Duffy]

Usually DNA evidence in a criminal case is presented, as is. There is no 'acceptable positive', it is up to the jury to decide reasonable doubt.


Oh dear, that's a minefield. And a bloody good argument against the death penalty.

[Godless Ray]

Not a chance in hell I would do it.

Godless Ray

[Seamus]

One last Hypothetical for the hell of it. ;)

A murder happens in the vicinity of where you live (or rape or whatever)

The Police make an announcment they want everyone to submit to a DNA test to exclude them from investigation.

You know nothing else about what will happen to the DNA after, or if a non donation will result in a visit by stormtroopers.

If it happened, would you?

Godless Ray


In my country, "a visit by storm troopers is fairly unlikely" .I guess it must an American thing :p

Under no circumstances will I speak to police or give them anything without advice from my solicitor (the exceptions being my name and address ,required by law if requested)--and that most definitely includes "do you know how fast you were going?"---If not under arrest,I am NOT going to a police station.


My position is based on advice of my best mate ,who happens to be to be a prosecuting barrister.



The Youtube video link below,"Don't talk to cops" is made for America,but is pertinent for Australians; We also have the right to remain silent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

[davo]

In Australia if the cops ask you for your name and address, they have to tell you why, and you have to provide correct details. If it is not one of the following, you cannot be charged for giving a false name and details. (tho try and get that one past them, I'm sure they will just claim something)

- are the driver of a motor vehicle or motorbike
- if the police believe you have information that could assist them in the investigation of an indictable offence.
- theft, burglary or assault
- public transport offences
- fishing offences
- if you buy alcohol when suspected of being under 18.
- you are in an area that is named in a court order under the terrorism law (eg: Sydney CBD still is from memory)
- the police reasonably believe you are named or are in the care of a person named in a court order under the terrorism laws.

ref: http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/Publications/cl.police_powers.pdf

[davo]

I should add, I pull out my phone with the cops and tell them I will be recording the audio of the incident. Usually they get shitty, but you are allowed too.

[Seamus]

I belong to the school of 'if it helps and I've got nothing to hide, then why not

Why not?

It's a common ploy used by police and authorities to allow invasions of privacy to which they have no legal right,and to get people to incriminate themselves.It also means they don't have to worry about warrants or reasonable cause.

It's a common misconception that US Fifth Amendment and our right to silence is to protect the guilty. It is NOT.The purpose is to protect the innocent from self incrimination.The assumption that "if I'm innocent I'll be fine" is both naive and untrue.The law is about evidence and REASONABLE DOUBT,not truth. Most convictions come from either confession or circumstantial evidence.If the evidence you've innocently provided fits,you WILL be charged and may be convicted. This scenario is common,not rare.

Please click on the link I provided.

[ozogg]

Quite right Duffy,

"... not all cops are corrupt ..."

But in Victoria, they have the highest rate of "murder" of (poste facto innocent) civilians in this country.

So if a Vic cop pulls you over, immediately ring a friend and leave the phone on, because this mob are likely to "shoot first", and "ask questions second".

Stats to follow.

_____
Half an hour later, here are the stats I claimed above - just to quiet those who can't manage their amygdala.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicoria_Police

Sry to invoke facts + stats, otherwise I might become too emotional !

_____
Recent history - controversy and corruption allegations

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/Victoria_Police_memorial.jpg/180px-Victoria_Police_memorial.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Police_memorial.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Victoria_Police_memorial.jpg)
Memorial in Kings Domain, Melbourne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_Domain,_Melbourne) to Victoria Police officers slain in the line of duty




In the 1980s and 1990s most Australian police forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_enforcement_agencies_of_Australia) battled widespread allegations of corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption) and graft. These allegations culminated in the establishment of several Royal Commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission) and anti-corruption watchdogs. Victoria Police have also had their fair share of inquiries (Beach et al). Criticisms centred around the fact that Victoria Police members were fatally shooting members of the public (both innocent and guilty) at a rate exceeding that of all other Australian police forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_enforcement_agencies_of_Australia) combined [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Police#cite_note-theage.com.au-0).



________________ reply separator ___________________
I belong to the school of 'if it helps and I've got nothing to hide, then why not'. Dad and his brothers were police officers and detectives and they would say public apathy and scare campaigns made their job so that more difficult. Not all law inforcement officers are corrupt and so often they have very little to go on without public help. I am saddened by the fact that some people are wronging accused but that shouldn't over shadow the tireless work done by our police to apprehend violent predators. In the news this week in Brissy a ring of pedophiles were caught grooming children through chat room sites. My thanks goes to the diligence of those officers and their dedication to protect the vulnerable and innocent. If I can help, I certainly would.

Anyway Davo, the DNA thing. I can't quite remember the exact percentage but in proving paternity cases the DNA match has to be around 90%(?) accurate. Is there a figure for legal cases? I'm surprised if anything lower would be acceptable.