60% of drivers give false details when stopped.

[Anthony Jones]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> If everyone had a DNA record think what a strong deterrent that would be
> against sexual and violent crimes. There would be some who would commit
> crimes anyway but for what I would think might be the majority the
> idea that they would be caught or suspected relatively quickly would be
> such a strong deterrent that they would never commit the crime in the
> first place. Whilst that may not hold so true for burglary etc. I would
> still think it would act as a deterrent to more than an insignificant
> number.

As someone has pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the failure of the
general public, the police, judges, so called 'expert witnesses', etc. to
understand basic statistics makes selecting people from a national DNA
database highly dangerous.

> If you refer to the principal of the police being able to dispense fines
> etc. for payment or impose driving disqualifications in the case of
> drink or drug driving without going to court, subject to a system of
> appeal. Then yes I think that some attempt should be made to reduce the
> wasteful use of court time trying cases that could be better resolved
> with a new/radical system.

So who protects the public from the police? You may be fair and just in your
work, but not every police officer is.

Anthony

 

[[email protected]]

Anthony Jones wrote:
> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> > If everyone had a DNA record think what a strong deterrent that would be
> > against sexual and violent crimes. There would be some who would commit
> > crimes anyway but for what I would think might be the majority the
> > idea that they would be caught or suspected relatively quickly would be
> > such a strong deterrent that they would never commit the crime in the
> > first place. Whilst that may not hold so true for burglary etc. I would
> > still think it would act as a deterrent to more than an insignificant
> > number.
>
> As someone has pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the failure of the
> general public, the police, judges, so called 'expert witnesses', etc. to
> understand basic statistics makes selecting people from a national DNA
> database highly dangerous.

As a single criteria yes. Police rely on scientific experts to advise
them and I don't advocate it's your DNA so your guilty as a basis for
investigation. DNA is a tool that can narrow investigation not
eliminate it.

Is your reason for not having a population level DNA record better than
my submission for it? I don't think it is.

>
> > If you refer to the principal of the police being able to dispense fines
> > etc. for payment or impose driving disqualifications in the case of
> > drink or drug driving without going to court, subject to a system of
> > appeal. Then yes I think that some attempt should be made to reduce the
> > wasteful use of court time trying cases that could be better resolved
> > with a new/radical system.
>
> So who protects the public from the police? You may be fair and just in your
> work, but not every police officer is.
>
> Anthony

Complaints and Discipline, IPCA, legal safeguards...

Sniper8052

 

[Anthony Jones]

[email protected] wrote:
> As a single criteria yes. Police rely on scientific experts to advise
> them and I don't advocate it's your DNA so your guilty as a basis for
> investigation. DNA is a tool that can narrow investigation not
> eliminate it.

Many of those 'scientific experts' have been shown not to understand basic
statistics themselves:

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/cotdeaths.html

Yet the police, in your own words, 'rely' on them. I don't find that
particularly reassuring.

> Is your reason for not having a population level DNA record better than
> my submission for it? I don't think it is.

Well, I think that it is. Clearly this is subjective.

> Complaints and Discipline, IPCA, legal safeguards...

One of the most important 'legal safeguards' is trial by jury, no?

Anthony

 

[Andy Leighton]

On 24 Nov 2006 02:23:49 -0800,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> Sorry this is all off-topic for u.r.c - please ignore if you just want to
>> read about bikes.
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:39:06 GMT,
>> Sniper8052(L96A1) <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think everyone should be on a DNA database from birth. Aside from
>> > reducing crime it would also help in the identification of remains.
>>
>> Fortunately not everyone thinks like you. In fact not even every police
>> man thinks like you. Moreover the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has
>> grave concerns about the relationships between individual and state with
>> a large-scale DNA database in place. If you treat the people as suspects
>> then you shouldn't be surprised if they don't respect the police.
>>
>> Also the keeping of innocents' DNA (as at the moment) could seriously
>> hamper the police. I know I wouldn't volunteer to eliminate myself
>> from any enquiries by providing a DNA sample if there was a request to
>> the public of my area.
>>
>> Presumably as you are so in favour of being on DNA databases you have
>> volunteered your DNA for the national DNA database?
>>
>> In one way it would be easier for the police to have a mandatory DNA
>> database as it would have prevented them being criticised again and again
>> for retaining DNA profiles when they shouldn't have. Also the police and
>> the companies it uses are pretty lax about data security. In fact the
>> govt. itself has given permission for the samples to be used in a number
>> of studies (including some very dubious sounding ones). With the
>> proposed privitisation of the forensics service I can only see the
>> situation becoming worse.
>>
>> Of course DNA profiling is a powerful tool (although it is only found at
>> about 1% of crime scenes). However it is only a tool, it isn't
>> infallible even before you consider errors in the database (an error
>> rate of over 1%).
>
> Or indeed the willful snipping of an important paragraph to imply
> something which I did not write. But what you have written and implied
> is a good example of the type of lobby tactics that I abhore.

That is a bit of a projection. I did not mean to snip anything
important. I was just trying to shorten things to a single statement
that you made and run with that. However you say that my quote of you
implies something that you did not write? What is that? As far as I
can see you are saying three things in my quote. You want a mandatory,
universal DNA database from birth. That you think it will reduce crime.
That you think it will improve identification of remains. Are any of
those things incorrect?

> An error rate of 1% represents a non error rate of 99%.

Sure. It would equate to over 650,000 incorrect profiles if there
was a mandatory database. I don't think you can just hold up your
hands and say it is right most of the time.

Also the error rate doesn't impinge on the consciousness of the public,
the lawyers or the judges who treat DNA evidence as virtually infallible.

> opinioin, reduce sexual and violent crime. If you think your 'civil
> liberty' give you the right to deny that safeguard to society when you
> have nothing to hide then I disagree.

As you say it is only /your opinion/ that sexual and violent crime would
be reduced. Yet in your second sentence you are claiming it as a safeguard
for society. It has never been established that a universal DNA database
WILL reduce such crime to such a high degree as to serve as that
safeguard. So the entire slur against people like me who take the
opposite pov to you is a non-sequitur.

However your opinion is your right. However, my civil liberty gives me the
right to disagree. It gives me the right to campaign to preserve the status
quo, indeed to campaign for a rollback of some of the more recent Home
Office legislation. It is my firm belief that anything that alters
the relationship between the individual and the state such as a
universal DNA database or ID card system should eventually be put to a
referendum if a government is crazy enough to try and introduce one. It
certainly shouldn't be ushered in through the back-door with virtually
no public debate.

The police force polices through the consent of the public. Change too
much in the relationship between the state and the individual and that
consent and cooperation may well be lessened to a degree where general
policing is more difficult. That is something I don't want to see nor
I guess do you.

> Police officers are on the DNA and Fingerprint register it is manditory
> when you join the service. Older members such as myself were put on
> the database a number of years back.

Fair enough. I didn't know that was the case. I do remember that the
Scottish Police Federation were against including their members in the
DNA database.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[[email protected]]

Anthony Jones wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > As a single criteria yes. Police rely on scientific experts to advise
> > them and I don't advocate it's your DNA so your guilty as a basis for
> > investigation. DNA is a tool that can narrow investigation not
> > eliminate it.
>
> Many of those 'scientific experts' have been shown not to understand basic
> statistics themselves:
>
> http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/cotdeaths.html
>
> Yet the police, in your own words, 'rely' on them. I don't find that
> particularly reassuring.

If I were advocating DNA as the sole criteria for guilt I would be
forced to agree with you in the intrests of being fair to the argument.
I am not advocating that though. I am advocationg narrowing the
unknown from the population to a number more likely to have commited
the offense and then having a full investigation.

>
> > Is your reason for not having a population level DNA record better than
> > my submission for it? I don't think it is.
>
> Well, I think that it is. Clearly this is subjective.
>
> > Complaints and Discipline, IPCA, legal safeguards...
>
> One of the most important 'legal safeguards' is trial by jury, no?

The point of this section was to remove cases that could more easily
and productivly be delt with by a new system. Trial by jury or
magistrates court should be reserved for those cases whic require it.

How a new system would work I don't know but it is an area that should
be investigated.


Sniper8052

 

[Anthony Jones]

[email protected] wrote:
> If I were advocating DNA as the sole criteria for guilt I would be
> forced to agree with you in the intrests of being fair to the argument.
> I am not advocating that though. I am advocationg narrowing the
> unknown from the population to a number more likely to have commited
> the offense and then having a full investigation.

Yet we already have the courts convicting solely on the basis of DNA
evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_versus_Denis_John_Adams

Advocating a system that might work in theory is not the same as arguing
that it would work in practise.

Anthony

 

[wafflycat]

"Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> So who protects the public from the police? You may be fair and just in
> your
> work, but not every police officer is.

Example: Telford - police & judiciary :-(

 

[[email protected]]

Anthony Jones wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If I were advocating DNA as the sole criteria for guilt I would be
> > forced to agree with you in the intrests of being fair to the argument.
> > I am not advocating that though. I am advocationg narrowing the
> > unknown from the population to a number more likely to have commited
> > the offense and then having a full investigation.
>
> Yet we already have the courts convicting solely on the basis of DNA
> evidence:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_versus_Denis_John_Adams
>
> Advocating a system that might work in theory is not the same as arguing
> that it would work in practise.
>
> Anthony

Which could equally be used to illustrate how the jury trial was no
safeguard of justice and the public. It is not a reason to throw out
the baby with the bath water.

There have always been miscarriages of justice and there always will be
no matter what system is used.

Sniper8052

 

[Mark Thompson]

Andy Leighton wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> An error rate of 1% represents a non error rate of 99%.
>
> Sure. It would equate to over 650,000 incorrect profiles if there
> was a mandatory database. I don't think you can just hold up your
> hands and say it is right most of the time.

Um, I think I've misunderstood you. Wouldn't a 1% error rate mean it *was*
right most of the time (about 99% of the time, I s'pose).

 

[lardyninja]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> > How can an ID card reduce crime?
>
> If everyone had a DNA record think what a strong deterrent that would be
> against sexual and violent crimes.


The question was to do with ID cards and your answer is concerning the
existance of a DNA database used for the investigation of crime. These
are two separate issues.

LN

 

[Earl Purple]

[email protected] wrote:
> Anthony Jones wrote:
> > Yet we already have the courts convicting solely on the basis of DNA
> > evidence:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_versus_Denis_John_Adams
> >
> > Advocating a system that might work in theory is not the same as arguing
> > that it would work in practise.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Which could equally be used to illustrate how the jury trial was no
> safeguard of justice and the public. It is not a reason to throw out
> the baby with the bath water.
>
> There have always been miscarriages of justice and there always will be
> no matter what system is used.

The appeal for that case was made on the basis of using Bayesian
statistics to direct a jury, not on the basis on DNA evidence.

Looking at all the evidence myself on that case from what I've read
online, including some transcripts from the actual court case itself, I
would probably also find guilty. I'm not sure that the conviction was
ever fully quashed anyway.

(If you look at the case carefully, the trial happened 4 years after
the rape because they had no way of identifying who the attacker was,
until the accused really did commit a sexual offence 2 years later at
which point his DNA entered the database and then they used it to match
him to this case as well. Now it's true the victim didn't identify him
and thought the attacker was younger, but there was a gap in time
between the events, and maybe his appearance had aged during this
period).

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Thompson wrote:

> Andy Leighton wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >> An error rate of 1% represents a non error rate of 99%.
> >
> > Sure. It would equate to over 650,000 incorrect profiles if there
> > was a mandatory database. I don't think you can just hold up your
> > hands and say it is right most of the time.
>
> Um, I think I've misunderstood you. Wouldn't a 1% error rate mean it *was*
> right most of the time (about 99% of the time, I s'pose).

I imagine that the PP was arguing that "most of the time" is not good
enough when applied to frequency of convicted individuals being guilty

best wishes
james

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Um, I think I've misunderstood you. Wouldn't a 1% error rate mean it
>> *was* right most of the time (about 99% of the time, I s'pose).
>
> I imagine that the PP was arguing that "most of the time" is not good
> enough when applied to frequency of convicted individuals being guilty

Taking my idiot hat off for moment, the meaning becomes clear: Having a DNA
database that gives false positives (or negatives) 1% of the time is not
on.

Bit of a ******* if you're hauled in for something nasty and you've not got
witnesses to say you were cycling a quick XX miles in dark, wind and rain
in the middle of winter. Who'd believe /that/???

 

[Matt B]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>
> If everyone had a DNA record think what a strong deterrent that would be
> against sexual and violent crimes.

At what cost though? This stinks of "better that ten innocent persons
suffer than that one guilty person escapes".

The presence of your DNA at the scene does not prove that /you/ were
there. A DNA database would simply be abused. Attempts would be made
to convict with no other evidence, relying on jury ignorance and
gullibility on the subject.

In a recent letter in the Telegraph, a DNA expert explained why he does
not support a national DNA database, and how easy it would be to avoid
leaving any trace of your own DNA, whilst 'planting' someone else's at
the scene of a crime. Familial testing means you could forever be being
dragged in 'for questioning' if you had a criminal in your extended family.

Soon DNA profiles will be used to filter on traits such as
homosexuality, aggressiveness, addictive personality, and so forth. The
police will be able to isolate 'suspect' groups with the appropriate
characteristics, without a DNA sample from the scene at all!

In 2000 only 300 of the 15,000 met police officers agreed to give
samples voluntarily when asked to do so. They knew the susceptibility
to abuse, and the dangers, of a central DNA database.

Once your sample is in the hands of the government it will be there
forever. Remember 'function creep'? Who knows what DNA samples will be
able to reveal in the future. No thank you.

--
Matt B

 

[Chris Johns]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Matt B wrote:

>> If everyone had a DNA record think what a strong deterrent that would be
>> against sexual and violent crimes.
> At what cost though? This stinks of "better that ten innocent persons suffer
> than that one guilty person escapes".

<DailyMail> If one child's life is saved... </DailyMail>

In my view whole "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"
argument is just **** for the much same reasons. If the DNA database can
show you were there when you weren't (that 1% quoted) you're stuffed.
Depending on the crime, you might have a real uphill struggle to rebuild
your life, if and when the "comptuer error" is discovered.

And if (or rather when) criminals hack into the database they will be able
to get away with murder... quite literally.
--
Chris Johns

 

[Tony Raven]

Mark Thompson wrote on 24/11/2006 15:29 +0100:
>
> Taking my idiot hat off for moment, the meaning becomes clear: Having a DNA
> database that gives false positives (or negatives) 1% of the time is not
> on.
>
> Bit of a ******* if you're hauled in for something nasty and you've not got
> witnesses to say you were cycling a quick XX miles in dark, wind and rain
> in the middle of winter. Who'd believe /that/???

Yes, but with 60 million people in the UK you would be one of 600,000
suspects. Think you might have a good chance of getting away with it ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Andy Leighton wrote on 24/11/2006 09:41 +0100:
>
> Presumably as you are so in favour of being on DNA databases you have
> volunteered your DNA for the national DNA database?
>

Given that human DNA is apparently 99.9% identical can we not just give
them Sniper's DNA and then they can charge him for everything. Do
wonders for the police clear up rate at the same time ;-)


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tom Crispin]

On 24 Nov 2006 03:03:00 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Complaints and Discipline, IPCA, legal safeguards...

That doesn't prevent bare-faced lying.

18 years ago I was arrested, charged and prosecuted for drunk cycling.

I was cycling along Greenwich High Street, cars were parked on both
sides of the road, and a bus didn't have enough space to pull into the
bus stop. It blocked traffic travelling both ways. A police car was
facing the bus. The bus driver put his vehicle into reverse to clear
a space for the facing driver. Unfortunately I was behind the bus on
my bike. Not being able to reverse myself, I just managed to scoot
around the inside of the bus, tap on the side door and yell "Watch
where you are reversing!"

The police turned around and stopped me.

In court the two policemen swore under oath that I shouted racist
obsenities at the driver, questioning his parentage. They also swore
that I "Smashed my fist into the windscreen of the bus."

The bus driver, however, agreed with everything I said, including that
I had "Tapped on his side window to draw his attention to something",
and yelled, "You nearly ran me down, watch where you a going!" He was
confused by this, as he couldn't remember having seen me, until it was
explained that I was behind when he reversed (something the police
swore hadn't happened).

Besides, I wasn't drunk. I wasn't even tipsy. I'd had one pint,
having finished work 1/2 hr earlier. However, the police did manage
to find a doctor to declare me drunk a further 90 minutes after the
event.

Thank God the policemen didn't have the wit to put pressure on the bus
driver to perjure himself.

 

[Clive George]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> That doesn't prevent bare-faced lying.
>
> 18 years ago I was arrested, charged and prosecuted for drunk cycling.

How did it end up?

> Besides, I wasn't drunk. I wasn't even tipsy. I'd had one pint,
> having finished work 1/2 hr earlier. However, the police did manage
> to find a doctor to declare me drunk a further 90 minutes after the
> event.

On what basis did the doctor declare you drunk?

cheers,
clive

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:46:50 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> That doesn't prevent bare-faced lying.
>>
>> 18 years ago I was arrested, charged and prosecuted for drunk cycling.
>
>How did it end up?
>
>> Besides, I wasn't drunk. I wasn't even tipsy. I'd had one pint,
>> having finished work 1/2 hr earlier. However, the police did manage
>> to find a doctor to declare me drunk a further 90 minutes after the
>> event.
>
>On what basis did the doctor declare you drunk?

Unknown.

He held a finger up infront of my face, and asked me to walk in a
straight line.

Remember that there is no blood alcohol limit for cycling, so
drunkenness is based on observation, and it's supposed to be the same
standard as drunk and disorderly.



The funniest moment of my trial was when one of the policemen
described how he had to drive at speeds of up to 25mph to catch up
with me. The magistrate asked the prosceutor if he expected him (the
beak) to believe that Mr Crispin could cycle like the 'Maillot Jaune'
in the Tour de France and still be drunk to which the prosceutor
replied, "some people cycle better when they've had a few drinks."

I was asked what I thought of that and replied that the proscecutor
had seen too many Carling Black Label adverts: that it refreshes the
cyclists other beers cannot reach.

The Beak (bless him) puffed himself up so much that I thought his
spotty bow tie would pop off and said, "No! No! No! Mr Crispin. That
was a Heineken advert not a Carling Black Label one. The Carling one
features squirrels."