4 ms·
This isn't really necessary. Make a DNA database of crimnals. That guy who killed a child and left his sperm behind? He is bound to slip up and get arrested for
by Tsubasachan 8y ago
This isn't really necessary. Make a DNA database of crimnals. That guy who killed a child and left his sperm behind? He is bound to slip up and get arrested for something sooner or later.
No need for the FBI to start fishing for everyone's DNA.
- vignesh_m 8y agoNot really a good rebuttal. The only reason for not getting our DNA is depending on criminals having repeat offenses?
- DanBC 8y agoEngland shows that "criminal" DNA databases expand as much as they can. Now if you're arrested, not necessarily convicted, you'll have your DNA taken and kept on file for a few years. Note that someone had to take England to the EU court of human rights to get this changed so that people found not guilty, or people not charged, won't have their DNA kept indefinitely. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-fre...
- mamon 8y agoSuppose that's the one of the real reasons of Brexit :)
- wtdata 8y agoThis is a bad idea, when are you considered a criminal and when is the FBI/police allowed to take your DNA for testing? When they arrest you? When you are convicted? Convicted in the 1st instance? Upper court?
- treis 8y ago>That guy who killed a child and left his sperm behind? He is bound to slip up and get arrested for something sooner or later. Or we can arrest the guy before he commits another crime.