DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice
4:30 pm - March 18th 2010
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
Over at OurKingdom, Guy Aitchison has posted again on the news that Labour is considering making the retention of DNA samples ‘an issue’ for the election. The latest twist in the tale is that Alan Johnson is reputedly scuppering a compromise with the Conservatives on this issue in order to make it something that Labour can campaign on. The Tories are to be branded as the party that is friendly to burglars.
In a matter of weeks the Labour party leadership will be expecting party members to get out there and make the case for a Labour government on the doorstep. How many in the party agree with the government on DNA sampling and the ‘Tories are friends of burglars’ line?
Let’s remind ourselves what is being proposed. Back in 1995 the police set up a national DNA database. Anyone who was arrested was liable to have a DNA sample taken. This was then put on the database. When a crime is committed, and there is DNA evidence, the police can check it against the database.
The European Court ruled in 2008 that the practice of holding indefinitely samples taken from those not convicted of a crime is in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (specifically in violation of Article 8 which upholds the citizen’s right to ‘a private life’).
The government responded, somewhat reluctantly and hesitatingly, by proposing to modify the original policy. Under what we may call the Johnson proposal, those arrested but not convicted of a crime will have their samples removed from the national database – but only after six years.
The Johnson proposal has the advantage that, in one respect, it may make it easier for the police to solve crimes. And this, of course, is the basis of the charge that opponents of the proposal are thereby ‘friendly’ to criminals.
But there are at least two strong reasons to oppose the proposal other than sympathy for criminals: that it is disproportionate and that it is potentially counter-productive.
Let’s take disproportionality first. If all we cared about was increasing how many crimes the police solve, then installing police surveillance equipment in every home would be an absolute humdinger of a policy idea. But obviously there would be the question of whether the gain in terms of crime detection is justified given the cost to privacy and the way the policy would change the relationship between the citizen and the state.
To put the point at its mildest, there is a reasonable case that the Johnson proposal is disproportionate. Given other changes in the law, and changes in police culture over the past decade or so, it is now quite remarkably easy for all sorts of people to get arrested. Indeed, there is even some concern that police may arrest people in order to get them on the database.
Under the Johnson proposal, as I understand it, the samples of anyone arrested would be liable to stay on the database for six years. And what message does that convey other than: we’ve arrested you once, so even though you have not been convicted of a crime, you are suspect? I do not want the state’s relationship to its citizens to be corrupted in this very basic way, and that is why I think the proposal is disproportionate.
Precisely because of the message the policy sends to people, moreover, it could well be counter-productive. If people feel they are being labelled as suspects by the police, even when they are not criminals, then this might make them less willing to cooperate with the police. The police are no longer an extension of ‘us’, the law-abiding majority, but become an alien power whom many of us fear and resent. But if the police get less cooperation with the public, won’t they solve fewer crimes?
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
This is a guest article. Stuart White is lecturer in Politics at Oxford University, based at Jesus College. He blogs at the Fabian society's Next Left
· Other posts by Stuart White
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Crime
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
In a nice liberal world the police would be there for preventing crime, and once one happened solving that crime. The police treat everyone as a suspect, whether they are on a database or not.
Have a look around the ‘net at some ‘police interaction’ message boards and blogs. Enlightening to read.
Does the DNA database even help? Does the retention of more and more profiles help solve more crimes? The recent Home Affairs Committee report is worth a read.
I’d be interested in knowing what other members of the Labour party think of the Johnson proposal and the tactic of portraying the Conservatives as the ‘burglar’s friend’.
Are we so unconvinced by the positive case for Labour that we have to resort to this crude exploitation of the fear card?
I presume that this is a cross post from another blog. Not everyone who reads LC will be campaigning for the Labour Party in a few weeks…
I struggle with the arguments both for and against DNA retention. If an individual is arrested but not prosecuted, it should be a matter of course to delete DNA data as quickly as possible. Ditto if DNA is voluntarily provided.
The problem for me is with retention of DNA data for others: those who are prosecuted and found guilty or not guilty or not proven. The technology is imperfect in the real world and should only be used as secondary evidence. The identification probabilities that apply to a specimen collected in a lab do not apply to a crime scene sample. And reliance on a technological fix for a sociological problem can only lead to bad police investigations.
For those found not guilty or not proven, my gut instinct is that the data should be deleted. If an individual is suspected of a further crime, then get a fresh DNA sample, even if that requires subterfuge. That rule permits DNA database searches for a close match, but the database would be much smaller. It puts the onus on the police to identify suspects rather than target mistaken biological matches.
And if found guilty, how long should DNA data be retained? I really don’t think that there are any hard rules for this. Why should the same rule apply to a white collar fraudster as a white collar serial rapist?
I further find it repugnant that any politician would use such a tricky question as a political argument.
4 – it is intended as a general discussion, not just for Labour members. I thought I’d edited it to remove the Labour-specific references, but hey ho.
However, since Stuart asked in the comments – I’m a Labour member and I think it is a very stupid strategy.
It reminds me a little bit of the 2006 local election campaign, when Labour organisers got told to make the campaign all about how the other parties were soft on crime, up until the point a week before the election when Charles Clarke let out all the foreign criminals.
Looking at the other thread as well, both Labour and the Lib Dems seem to think that running right-wing campaigns on crime is a vote winner. It isn’t.
No problem for me, Don. The controversial expression begins “In a matter of weeks the Labour party leadership will be expecting party members to get out there and make the case for a Labour government on the doorstep.”
I explored similar ideas to Stuart’s regarding the relationship between police/the state and citizens, but with the question of ID cards generally, here:
http://badconscience.com/2009/06/01/dna-database-the-governments-distrust-of-citizens/
The original post isn’t great, but the comments thread brings out a good point: that it’s minority groups that are dispraportionately likely to be affected by things like ID cards (and compulsory DNA sampling).
There are some interesting facts and figures in the Genewatch submission to the HAC.
One of the things which annoys me most about the DNA database, and also National ID cards is the way government spokespeople refuse to acknowledge the mere possibility of potential abuse, now or in the future, or of valid civil liberties issues.
Are they truly so ignorant that they don’t realise those worries exist? So arrogant that they can’t be bothered to address them? Or do they simply not have a valid argument in their favour?
labour government must delete innocont peoples dna from police data base because innocent peoples are loseing trust on police. general public will be frightened to come foroward for any withness because of dna .police also cannot do anything until the alen johnson policy change.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Liberal Conspiracy
DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O
-
Amro
RT @GuyAitchison: RT @libcon: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O
-
Big Brother Watch
RT @GuyAitchison: RT @libcon: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O
-
Tony Brown
RT @GuyAitchison: RT @libcon: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O
-
alice in wonderland
RT @PoliceStateUK #DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practise http://tr.im/Soh5 (via @libcon)
-
Alexis Kateifides
RT @policestateuk: #DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practise http://tr.im/Soh5 (via @libcon)
-
Alasdair
RT @policestateuk: #DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practise http://tr.im/Soh5 (via @libcon)
-
Dandelion
Alan Johnson wants to hold onto innocent ppls DNA for 6 yrs http://bit.ly/9U0Mqf #sackjohnson Sign the petition http://bit.ly/5Czvgn
-
Dandelion
Alan Johnson wants to hold onto innocent ppls DNA for 6 yrs http://bit.ly/9U0Mqf #sackjohnson Sign the petition http://bit.ly/5Czvgn
-
dandelion101
Alan Johnson wants to hold onto innocent ppls DNA for 6 yrs http://bit.ly/9U0Mqf #sackjohnson Sign the petition http://bit.ly/5Czvgn
-
uberVU - social comments
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O…
-
Politics of UK
DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice #ukpolitics http://bit.ly/aAxQsN
-
Thaddeus Beatlebrox
RT @politicsofuk: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice #ukpolitics http://bit.ly/aAxQsN
-
Attila Schnapka
RT @politicsofuk: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice #ukpolitics http://bit.ly/aAxQsN
-
Khrystyna Khodakiv
RT @politicsofuk: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice #ukpolitics http://bit.ly/aAxQsN
-
Marplesmarbles
RT @dandelion101: Alan Johnson wants to hold onto innocent ppls DNA for 6 yrs http://bit.ly/9U0Mqf #sackjohnson Sign the petition http://bit.ly/5Czvgn
-
Lisa Tweedie
RT @dandelion101: Alan Johnson wants to hold onto innocent ppls DNA for 6 yrs http://bit.ly/9U0Mqf Sign the petition http://bit.ly/5Czvgn
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
