"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 16, 12:36?pm, Mizter T wrote:
On May 16, 10:36?am, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
remarked:

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*.
They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he
was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...sutcliffe/tom-
sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html

Interesting piece!

A side effect of taking DNA has been the fact that some close
relatives of innocent DNA sample givers have been caught due to the
relative giving a sample.

George



---------------------------



And in at least one case innocent close relatives were very nearly
convicted of murder, I would not be surprised if there are other cases
where the people were convicted.

I think it was David Davies who suggested that it might be more profitable
if they first collected DNA from people who had previously been convicted
of offences especially ones who were released early and so the authorities
can probably force them to do so.

I just dread the number of false matches there are going to be if they ever
get their way and have DNA from the whole population. We all know this
government's record with large databases.