Yes, of course the retention of entirely innocent people's DNA is scandalous.
But, as with the ruling against conviction on anonymous evidence alone, we do not need a foreign court or a foreign charter to tell us so.
We know this - or, at least, we should know this - from our own Common Law.
To which we must return.
As we must return to proper preventative policing on foot, and to proper sentencing, so that no one any longer feels the need for this sort of thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The vast majority of crimes would not be solved by that sort of policing. It might make people feel batter, but it wouldn't make any difference to the crime rate. Not that I think that perception isn't important - it is - but there are too many people who seem to think that somehow the clock can be turned back to a 'safer' age. It can't, and it won't.
ReplyDelete"The vast majority of crimes would not be solved by that sort of policing."
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't need to be, because they wouldn't happen in the first place.
"The vast majority of crimes would not be solved by that sort of policing."
ReplyDeleteCitation needed.
Not in the real world, sweetie.
ReplyDeleteThe only people who can write that are those who themselves enjoy such lavish policing and other security arrangements that, frankly, they don't know what they are talking about.
And, as they say in America, "you just described" the people running Britain.
Surely logging DNA of a felon after the crime is too late. You must either take everyones DNA on a massive database when born, or accept that a "criminal database" of DNA leaves the door wide open for first time offenders.
ReplyDelete