Britain’s Lord Justice Sedley has caused quite a fuss by suggesting that all Britons (and any visitors to the Isles) should be added to the British criminal DNA database (alternative article).
Unsurprisingly the suggestion has caused all kinds of hysteria which seems to rather miss his Lordship’s point: it’s fundamentally inequitable to have some people in a DNA database and not others, so what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and Prime Minister Brown’s DNA should be in there just like anyone else’s (Brown’s spokesperson responded to the suggestion in truly bland bureaucratic style by noting that there would be “huge logistical and bureaucratic issues” associated with adding everyone to the database).
At present in the UK you can be added to the database simply by being suspected of an offence, and it’s incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get your DNA removed even if no charges are brought or your innocence is otherwise upheld - as such a great many innocent people have their DNA on permanent record with the powers that be.
As reported in The Independent, Lord Sedley said:
Where we are at the moment is indefensible.
We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven’t, it isn’t … that’s broadly the picture.
As someone over at Samizdata points out, Sedley has a history of standing up for civil liberties (see for example this speech) so one might infer that his objective is to suggest the logical conclusion of the present policy in order to provoke a reaction against it, although others in the same discussion suggest that he is, in fact, deadly serious in his suggestion.
Whether he’s serious or not, though, the underlying logic is hard to fault: either all innocent people should be in the database with whatever consequences that entails, or no innocent people should be in the database (and it could be argued that even ‘guilty’ people should be removed at some point). Once that proposition is accepted, the only outcome consistent with the liberal democratic tradition and modern human rights standards is surely to remove all innocent people from the database. On present form the chances of that happening in Britain are close to zero.
(via Slashdot).
“it’s fundamentally inequitable to have some people in a DNA database and not others”
So is it fundamentally inequitable to have some people in jail and not others? Same premise… But, of course not, as long as there is good reason for the difference in treatment. You get arrested and convicted of a certain crime (rape, murder, etc.), then your DNA goes in the database. If you have no conviction, or no arrest, then you don’t go into the database. And that is fundamentally inequitable? Hmmm. Seems fair to me.
His Lordship’s suggestion that everyone should join the DNA database seems to be the inequitable thing, as innocents and criminals are being treated the same way, when they clearly shouldn’t be.
Hey, a strawman. Congratulations Paul, your coming of age as a blogger has begun in earnest. The full roster of logical fallacies will surely follow, along with the usual cat death threats and tim Blair spambot blitzes. That’s quite a milestone your porcine provocateur has handed you there, you really should send him a ham.
Hmmm. This type of thing is always difficult. Enjoyed the reference to Minority Report. Pre-crime is a delightfully futuristic term. For what it’s worth, I believe convicted criminals’ DNA should be compulsorily on file and no-one else’s.
Piggg, if you read what’s actually written there, currently innocent people who have had dealing with the police are in the database.
So the point being made was that either all innocent people should be in there, or none should be.
Cannibalism, potentially?
there is a brilliant paper by dr william macneil at griffith law school entitled precrime never pays! law and economics in minority report worth looking at.