Yep.
Pretty much a certainty, I'd expect.
Why is there less risk of crime? You think rapists and murderers and torturers weigh the risk / benefit ratio of their crimes in a calm and rational fashion? You think that the fear of being caught deters criminals? Because, I have to say, there's no evidence to support that concept. Propery crimes, yes - they're crimes of opportunity. But violent crime, no.
So the most potential benefit is that there's possibly a slightly better chance that violent criminals might be caught a bit more quickly, after your loved ones had been raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered. Which is a good thing, but it's not exactly much of a consolation.
And for the money it would cost - £18 billion - I'd estimate you could recruit 30,000 new police officers instead. Which seems like a lot to me.
Finally, if criminals can evade arrest by the cunning ploy of not answering the door to the policeman, I don't hold up much hope for crime prevention via sophisticated database analysis techniques. Technology really doesn't solve anything if your basic processes are incorrect.
And if it did help to catch lots more criminals, then just think of how many more jails we'd need to build. We can't even house the criminals we can catch without a DNA database! So add considerably more onto that total...
Not that this is a reason not to improve our ability to catch and prosecute criminals of course. But is there a way money could be better spent?
Funny that you have picked up on sensationalism when I have mentioned other valid reasons. I elaborate on the latter.
Employers can use DNA records to select against you because of your genetic information e.g. predisposition to illness. Who knows they may even select personality traits from these records.
Insurance will by definition is the spread of risk so that the insurers take the rough with the smooth, can select against life insurance applicants based on their DNA and load the premium to the point where some people will be uninsurable. This could apply to endowment mortgage applications. This means that they are no longer taking a gamble like a bookmaker does but rather making a near certain profit on every policy.
Medical insurance can become prohibitive for some people. Another insurance point is that it you choose to have acccess to your DNA records and you do not disclose all that you know about yourself on your application form, your policy can be invalidated for non disclosure.
The information contained in your DNA is much more important and revealing than your address and bank details. This relates to your very make up.(I can see a few jokes coming). I can easily envisage a government department giving you a negative response because some stupid git has been at the Database and interpreting something detrimental about you.
I was going to look at Saudi but im afraid you might be true, they arrested 57 men for flirting so in guess the deterrents aren't working at present
Saudi Arabian men arrested for flirting - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com
Im sure they would work wonders with our feral youth
Its Jerry Springer Stewart not Gerry... *** dont offend the master of crappo television.
Anyway, MO based on what ive read so far is that if we are going to start DNA from birth you might as well do all new borns and all people who enter the uk.
Whilst i agree most men are the ones who commit certain types of crimes there are still plenty of women that commit just as horrific crimes but of a different genre. Murder of pregnant women for example to get the baby. Baby snatching, murder of husbands, GBH.
£18 billion!! that is a hell of a lot of money by all accounts. If it will really cost that much, the chances of this happenning is precisely NIL.
We could start by keeping the ones that are caught and found guilty there in the first place! and for as long as $loody necessary!
How often do we have people who are freed too early who go on perpetrating the same horrible crimes.
It does not take £18 billion to do that.
Same as the chance of city bonuses being under £18 billion by year 2010 as nil
City bonuses hit record high with £14bn payout | Business | The Guardian
We could start by DNA testing all of the youth, who are likely to have longer criminal careers. A government could identify the "monster" genes and abort those foetus that carry them, and neuter the carriers. Or a government could draft the carriers as troops. I was born when Hitler was in power. "Risk of abuse of power" means something to me.
From the LSE study, here:
So it could conceivably be as "low" as £10 billion, or £1 billion a year. Assuming it all goes smoothly, it's all perfectly-planned, it doesn't overrun, and - oops, sorry, I just had to duck a flying pig there.We estimate the likely cost of the ten-year rollout of the proposed identity cards scheme will be between £10.6 billion and £19.2 billion, with a median of £14.5 billion. This
figure does not include public or private sector integration costs, nor does it take into
account possible cost overruns
But let's be reasonably kind and assume £15 billion, or £1.5 billion per year for 10 years. Assuming we can get 10-20 new coppers on the beat for £1 million (£50-100K per copper), that's up to 30,000 new police officers we could get instead. Which seems like a lot to me - there's only 30,000 police officers in the entire Metropolitan police force.
The LSE have done a lot of good work on this area - and so of course, they have been attacked by the government for presuming to do some actual credible research.
See here for more information:
The Identity Project
There are times when the venom level of your misandry really worries me babe. May I ask, when your read the tabloid press do you ever stop for a moment to consider the wider implications and the possibility that there may be a valid counter argument?
When you post these sorts of threads you never seem to include any balance, or temper your argument with your thoughts. It's usually just "I read this in the Mail/Mirror/Sun, (delete as applicable) let's hang them all!" This really does you a great disservice, as you have real flashes of brilliance in some debates
The world is after all neither black, nor white. Ohh I just read THIS on the BBC news website. I know this case as it is local and has a lot of local press coverage. This guy did NOTHING wrong. She forged his signature to obtain loans he knew nothing about, and when she was in too deep she tried to kill him to cash in his insurance. Hesuffered kidney failure and brain damage and is now blind. He is also partially deaf, has some paralysis of his facial muscles and needs 24-hour care.
Please remember that these columnists are paid to churn out column inches. There is no need for their work to be that well researched, or to particularly stand the scrutiny of debate - it is after all just tomorrow's chip wrapper. There is a danger however that weaker minded people may not scrutinise the comments they read, seeing them as a STARTING point for debate, but rather view these columns as definitive reference material.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks