3 ms·

>You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we hav

by Zenst 7y ago

>You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we have rain. But this is London. Sorry, i'm running on a tangent and slightly off-topic and respect and acknowledge what your saying. I'm just more aware of the aspect that those 10 people that get away with crime can impact more than one innocent found guilty. What with all the privacy and civil protection laws, criminals do know how to game and play the system better than those who control and run the systems. As for DNA - it should be default no, but equally allow those who want to opt-in and allow their DNA to be used to help maybe identify some genetic relative of a crime. But like most things - no clear cut solution and when it swings so far one direction, you end up with a powerless system that struggles to fulfill it's remit due to being buried in red-tape.

ch4s3 7y ago
I think I may not be clearly explaining my key concern, which is the inherent peril of this type of policing. Your DNA and mine are basically everywhere we go, and many places we've never been due to transfer. Forensic DNA tests can now easily identify these traces of you from places you have never been. Commercial DNA databases now allow police to target people who weren't previously identified as suspects by conventional means. The combination of the two can and has led to innocent people being swept up in the grinding gears of the justice system. There is little to no oversight, and courts/juries aren't aware of this problem. This issue also creates perverse incentives within the system that will allow bad cops and prosecutors to pin crimes on people they don't like, and use DNA databases to back into the appearance of scientific evidence. There is immense moral hazard here.
- Zenst 7y ago
  SO a good example would be - you go into a shop and pick up a bottle and examine the label and then change your mind for whatever reason and place it back. Sombody else comes in, buys that bottle and let's say for ease of argument they have gloves and so does the cashier. That bottle then gets used in a crime to hurt somebody and tada. Your in the frame for a crime you did not commit and the onus laid upon you that you was not there or did it. That kinda thing?
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    No, it's more like you sit on a bench or on the subway and shed a bunch of skin cells. Someone else comes along and particles of those cells cling to their coat or shoes. That person walks along and some of your cell fragments fall off of them in an alley. Later a serious crime happens in that alley and your DNA is recovered along with samples from a let's say 3 other people. The police run each sample through a commercial database and get hits from you and two of the other 3 people. Let's assume the other two have solid allabies with recites and witnesses. You were at home alone during the crime and have no solid alibi. What do you as an innocent person do in that situation? You have to hire a lawyer, and possibly face a trial where you could serve time in prison for a crime you did not commit. If you are convicted, you go to jail, the case is closed, and the real criminal goes free to perhaps continue committing crimes. Your life is ruined, and anyone who knows and believes you will lose all faith in the system. The tax payers money is wasted jailing you, the victim receives no real justice, and all of society loses. Courts just aren't prepared for this. Judges and the general public all believe that DNA evidence is basically magic. This is a real problem.
    - Zenst 7y ago
      Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in play dictate how long that CCTV can be held. So imagine in your fine example that you later in life end up with the police taking your DNA for something else, even if to eliminate your DNA from forensics upon an aggravated burglary at your partners flat as an example. The police computer then pings about the previous alleyway crime and this is years later. You now find that proving were you actually was back then, harder than more recently. CCTV from a bar you was at - all gone due to data protection retention laws that curtail how long it can be held. Google - nope as some law came in that stops them keeping that info. You kinda get down to the situation that your only assured safety from past and future crimes is to self monitor and track. Heck - I literally bug my own house and carry a tracking monitor due to tangent issues, to protect me from such mistakes/abuse etc. ALso having done Jury duty, it's not just the evidence and opinion of guilty or not, but how that evidence is presented and the impact of the dominant alpha's in that jury. Whilst that should not be a factor for the most enlightened (general makeup of posters upon these forums), the population has few discriminators upon the makeup of juries - age, not below average IQ and criminal record or mostly - lack of. So privacy laws are great and have many upshots, they can equally have some downsides. Why I feel that choice should be down to individuals and sure, opt-out by default. But you can start to see why opt-in also helps, so you can clear things up in a timely manner and not suddenly 15 odd years later get arrested for a crime you did not commit and the quick simple proof has long gone, making innocence much harder to play out.

by Zenst 7y ago

ch4s3 7y ago

I think I may not be clearly explaining my key concern, which is the inherent peril of this type of policing. Your DNA and mine are basically everywhere we go, and many places we've never been due to transfer. Forensic DNA tests can now easily identify these traces of you from places you have never been. Commercial DNA databases now allow police to target people who weren't previously identified as suspects by conventional means. The combination of the two can and has led to innocent people being swept up in the grinding gears of the justice system. There is little to no oversight, and courts/juries aren't aware of this problem. This issue also creates perverse incentives within the system that will allow bad cops and prosecutors to pin crimes on people they don't like, and use DNA databases to back into the appearance of scientific evidence. There is immense moral hazard here.

Zenst 7y ago
SO a good example would be - you go into a shop and pick up a bottle and examine the label and then change your mind for whatever reason and place it back. Sombody else comes in, buys that bottle and let's say for ease of argument they have gloves and so does the cashier. That bottle then gets used in a crime to hurt somebody and tada. Your in the frame for a crime you did not commit and the onus laid upon you that you was not there or did it. That kinda thing?
- ch4s3 7y ago
  No, it's more like you sit on a bench or on the subway and shed a bunch of skin cells. Someone else comes along and particles of those cells cling to their coat or shoes. That person walks along and some of your cell fragments fall off of them in an alley. Later a serious crime happens in that alley and your DNA is recovered along with samples from a let's say 3 other people. The police run each sample through a commercial database and get hits from you and two of the other 3 people. Let's assume the other two have solid allabies with recites and witnesses. You were at home alone during the crime and have no solid alibi. What do you as an innocent person do in that situation? You have to hire a lawyer, and possibly face a trial where you could serve time in prison for a crime you did not commit. If you are convicted, you go to jail, the case is closed, and the real criminal goes free to perhaps continue committing crimes. Your life is ruined, and anyone who knows and believes you will lose all faith in the system. The tax payers money is wasted jailing you, the victim receives no real justice, and all of society loses. Courts just aren't prepared for this. Judges and the general public all believe that DNA evidence is basically magic. This is a real problem.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Your situation gets more complex if you have CCTV to proves your not there or somewhere else. Crux though would be that if they don't find you soon, laws in play dictate how long that CCTV can be held. So imagine in your fine example that you later in life end up with the police taking your DNA for something else, even if to eliminate your DNA from forensics upon an aggravated burglary at your partners flat as an example. The police computer then pings about the previous alleyway crime and this is years later. You now find that proving were you actually was back then, harder than more recently. CCTV from a bar you was at - all gone due to data protection retention laws that curtail how long it can be held. Google - nope as some law came in that stops them keeping that info. You kinda get down to the situation that your only assured safety from past and future crimes is to self monitor and track. Heck - I literally bug my own house and carry a tracking monitor due to tangent issues, to protect me from such mistakes/abuse etc. ALso having done Jury duty, it's not just the evidence and opinion of guilty or not, but how that evidence is presented and the impact of the dominant alpha's in that jury. Whilst that should not be a factor for the most enlightened (general makeup of posters upon these forums), the population has few discriminators upon the makeup of juries - age, not below average IQ and criminal record or mostly - lack of. So privacy laws are great and have many upshots, they can equally have some downsides. Why I feel that choice should be down to individuals and sure, opt-out by default. But you can start to see why opt-in also helps, so you can clear things up in a timely manner and not suddenly 15 odd years later get arrested for a crime you did not commit and the quick simple proof has long gone, making innocence much harder to play out.