Along with, as you say, the woman convicted this week of the attempted murder of her husband with anti-freeze.Originally Posted by Lee Bartholomew
It's a question of motive. Simply because men are more likely to kill for a particular motive doesn't make them more dangerous than women.
Only someone who knows nothing about the animal kingdom would suggest, as did this chap in the Mirror, that male homo sapiens are uniquely savage or violent.
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 29th-February-2008 at 03:44 PM.
Well, why not just have a curfew so that all men have to stay indoors except for when they are at work? That will not only slash the number of voilent murders but all other crime too.
What's that? You think it's totally unjustified to take such extreme measures against the millions of men who aren't even criminals, let alone violent criminals, just to make sure you catch the ones who are? Hmmm. Perhaps you have a point.
Whether I have anything to hide is not the issue. The question is whether private information about me should be held on a database somewhere on the offchance that I might commit a serious crime, when I will never do any such thing.
As long as we have your word for it.
As long as we have your word for it.BS might not be about to murder someone, but I bet if you asked all the thousands of murderers locked up all over the world, they will all tell you they didn't do it.
C'mon Barry....You can do better than that...! I've been waiting all day for you to join in this thread (sad innit...you're like the Simon Cowell of the forum)
Two questions.So there's a risk that my information MIGHT be lost or abused. If that means that there might be less chance of my loved ones being raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered is it worth the risk?
Nah, fek 'em.
First, what do you suppose the risk of haing your "loved ones [...] raped, tortured, mutilated and murdered" actually is, right now? In proper arithmetical terms. (Clue: number of people who suffer those things over number of people who live from birth to death without suffering any of those things).
Second, what do you suppose the reduced risk will be with a national DNA database in existence, in arithemetical format again, together with workings showing how you arrive at the conclusion.
Tedious, out of date, ill-informed speculation; check the dates.
Gav...your test starts now. you have 20 minutes to compose your answers and don't forget to show your workings out, or you'll lose points.
1. No idea, I'm not interested enough to calculate it (Response to your clue: Go boil your head you patronising pr1ck, then you might want to install a spell checker, or learn basic English).
2. see above.
Yeah, that stick has always been a barrier to progress as far as I'm concerned.There you go. Just thought I'd amend that for you.
I do this for fun. I like poking you all with a stick...lighten up dude.
And your mistake is not to realise that the two are the same.You can leave your Orwellian world and join the real world whenever you're ready.
Have you read 1984? You don't think the proles were hopelessly unaware of the deceptions practised on them?
Fortunately, that's not your decision. In reality, the privacy we took for granted is being gradually eroded. Any suggestion that such incredibly private data should be forcibly extracted by the state on an off-chance is foolish.
Someone above wrote about Hitler and the abuse of power. There are other people who have pointed out that totalitarianism is seductive; "let's trade freedom for security - I'm far more worried about security", until the freedom is all gone and then the mantra becomes "now I feel secure but it's driving me insane; I'd trade it all for a little bit of freedom".
So sorry; too late. The state chooses not to grant any more freedom because it is so much easier for us to exercise control when you have no freedoms.
Try here...
One of the great dangers of DNA comparison is that the man in the street - who in this case finds himself on a jury - grossly overestimates the importance of technical evidence of this kind. It's like lie detectors - in fact, polygraphs are almost useless at detecting lies, their usefulness being in spoofing suspects into believing that, since they can't fool a machine that can detect lies, they might as well confess now. So they can't be used in court, because although you might tell a jury "The polygraph shows that the defendant is most likely lying, with a probability of 61%", research has shown that juries will convict on that statement alone, despite the fact that 39% probability of him telling the truth is, by any objective measure, "reasonable doubt".
If a policemen, on the other hand, gives evidence that in questioning the subject, he formed the opinion, based on training, a psychology degree, years of experience on the force and thousands of interviews conducted with suspects, that it was 6 to 4 on that the suspect was lying, no-one convicts without corroborating evidence.
We have a rather blinkered tendency to assume that if the answer was provided by technology rather than other people, then it is by definition more reliable.
You can check my DNA if you like!As long as we have your word for it.
Um....
hold on though...
Patronising? Moi?
I'm typing on my Dad's PC with a teeny keyboard, so yes, apologies for any and all typos. The insults, though, are mine. (Sssh. Don't tell FRocky, he'll have a hissy fit.)
Simon Cowell? That might be the nicest thing you've ever said about me.
But seriously, that is the great objection to universal functions like a DNA database. It is, by definition, an infringement of the privacy and liberty of the citizen, and therefore requires extraordinary justification. There isn't one. It would be like destroying an entire maize crop because there were a couple of dodgy niblets.
The reaction ought to be in proportion to the risk.
The media focus on these events has once again caused people to take these happenings out of context. Violent crime is going down; the murder rate is falling. The way toward a crime-free society is to progress toward an inequality-free society. Actually, no; there'll never be such a thing. But a society in which inequalities are far fewer and far less pronounced than they are now.
Dodgy Niblets?
Sometimes you make these comparisons and they are total nonsense. It's like the one you did some time ago on the Scietology thread about one mouldy piece of bread or summit.
Dodgy niblets don't rape and kill people, f..f..s.....!
As for the question you asked Gav. I don't have any facts and figures but I understand why you asked the question. You are saying that there is a very small chance indeed of being murdered. You might as well be talking Dutch...any risk is a bad one.
What you don't address is how many unsolved murders and rapes there are. There might be only a small chance of these terrible things happening, but think of all the parents of dead daughters who will spend the rest of their days wondering who killed their daughter and crying themselves to sleep at night because their precious daughter is dead and the person who did it is free to do as he (ok...maybe she) likes.
A risk, even a small one is good enough reason for me and I do understand all your arguments about privacy and all that, but I just believe personally that my privacy is less important that that small risk.
Re: A fine line between Man and Monster
So DNA profiling isn't a panacea for all the countries ills after all. It won't stop baby rape. It's just a tool for possibly getting more convictions. I am sure all the mummy's and daddy's of these raped and murdered daughters (or what ever totally emotive language you wish to use) want the people responsible convicted. That is something altogether different from getting a conviction. Barry has already pointed out some of the huge problems of using 1,000,000 to 1 scientific evidence in jury cases. Think back to the parents who were until recently 'Monsters' only to be told that the doctor in the prosecution case had over stated the evidence and actually they were now... ummm... free to go... oppps .... sorry.
Why do the police need a warrant to search your home? Why can't they just kick anyone's door in at 4am and search the place? If they're innocent they have nothing to hide. Why can suspects only be detained for a short period before they have to be charged? If they are innocent they have nothing to hide. Why do the police need a warrant to look at your bank account? If you're innocent you have nothing to hide.
Is 'nothing to hide' the same as 'nothing to fear'? No. Is that statement alarmist? Hopefully.
Why should the police be given the right to rifle our most personal information willy nilly - the actual structure that makes us who we are - when they need a warrant to look into your Barclay's account! The ends do not always justify the means. Like electronically tracking every citizen.
It's a case of balancing up said risks and the significance of these DNA measures in reducing said risks, against the downsides of instigating said measures.
From what Barry tells us, which tallies well with other reading I've done on the subject, I'm unconvinced that a full DNA database is likely to have much impact on the incidence of kind of crimes you're talking about. There's plenty of other options which could have more impact, and I'm for taking them first (for example: the early release of prisoners has already been mentioned on this thread)
As for the downsides of the DNA database - well - it's part of a general erosion of civil liberties which we're seeing far too much of at present. The more this happens, the more power the government gains over its people, and the more that power can be, and will be, abused.
Thomas Jefferson had a very nice take on this: "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks