A National DNA Database? No thanks

The conviction of Steve Wright for the murders of five prostitutes in Ipswich following the use of DNA material collected from an earlier arrest for another crime poses a number of interesting questions. First, how reliable is DNA evidence itself? The answer seems now to be that DNA techniques are well refined and do not admit of error. We have, after the use of DNA matching, heard little more of the protestations about the innocence of James Hanratty, executed for the A6 murder. The only sufferer in relation to the apparent infallibility of DNA matching must be the writers of detective stories whose mysteries can now be pierced by the needles of forensic science.

Secondly, how fair is it that people who are arrested and finger-printed now have their DNA taken as well, and these records remain in police hands if the individual is acquitted at trial, or even if proceedings are actually discontinued? This seems to stigmatise not the guilty, of whom it might easily be said that they are likely to commit other crimes, but also those who may have been innocent all along but who have attracted police attention.

Thirdly, should everyone be required to submit a sample of DNA to a national database? The government has declared that there are practical and ethical reasons for not implementing this. Pressing the point further, one commentator said that perhaps we should all be micro-chipped in order to allow for gps tracking of every one of us. It might have an effect on the reduction of crime and no-one (except criminals) is likely to think this is a bad thing. Naturally there are worries about the use to which the government might put the information (perhaps creating a bank of persons whose genetic make-up displays a predisposition to commit crimes). It’s a bit science fiction frightening, like that excellent movie, Minority Report. No one would feel that the government’s record on data security is reassuring. We have almost weekly revelations about the loss of data from computers in cars, discs sent through the post, missing data in the USA and the like. Not an attractive proposition at all.

But leaving that practicality aside, why should I deny the government access to knowing my DNA code. It seems a monstrous intrusion into our private lives for the police to have the unfettered right to take samples of our DNA because it clearly contains sensitive and intimate information. If, however, the police were investigating a murder or serious assault near me, would I refuse to supply DNA in accordance with their wish to eliminate me as a suspect. There may be a privilege against self-incrimination but it’s hard to see why I should decline to co-operate with a police enquiry unless I have either committed a crime or am thinking of doing so in the future. There may a presumption of innocence in a criminal court but the police must take the opposite view. For them we are all guilty unless we can prove otherwise.

Fourthly, it does seem that the current database of some 4.5 million persons is unfair as it includes all those who have been arrested, whether convicted or not. Should the criteria be changed? This is being challenged in the courts now as it is extremely difficult to have one’s DNA record removed from the database once it is placed there. The inclusion of all those convicted of serious crimes may be a sensible precaution in that we know the prison system is so ineffective or the individuals sent there so recalcitrant that enormous number re-offend. To include those who are otherwise ‘innocent’ seems illogical and unfair. Apparently about 5% of the UK population are on the database whilst in the USA the figure is 0.5%. But then the Americans are much more sceptical about the abuse of authority then we are.

A national DNA database would have uses other than the detection of crime. It might help to identify the victims of multiple person disasters, or the unidentifiable drunk who has collapsed by the side of the road. However rational it seems, the idea of compulsorily acquiring a specimen of DNA from every one of us seems to be a bridge too far. There is no doubt, nonetheless, that some debate will rage over this issue when the technique has proved so successful in rooting out killers. No one will regret that.

Richard