DNA for hire
Posted by Christie Malry on April 16, 2010 at 7:07 pm
There’s an odd sort of an article on CiF today, in which a young man, arrested for smoking cannabis in public although later released without charge, argues that innocent people such as him shouldn’t be on the DNA database.
Now, I happen to think that I don’t want people smoking cannabis in the street, even at night, and I also think that the police probably called this just about right – arrest to put the fear of God into him, then let him go without charge. However, on the subject of whether we then want people like this within the DNA database forever, I agree with the author – we don’t.
Happily, there would appear to be a market-based solution to this: pay people to be on the database. This then makes the police decide which innocent people they really want on the database, and those they are only keeping ‘just in case’.
There are an estimated 850,000 innocent people on the database. So a DNA rental payment of £1,000 per annum to each of these people would cost less than £1 billion, which would not break the bank, even if the police decided to keep all of them on the database. However, the payment is big enough to be attractive to individuals while acting as a significant deterrent to the police’s natural inclination to go on fishing expeditions. Under my proposal, either side could opt out of the arrangement, in which case the DNA record would be destroyed and the rental arrangement would cease.
I would extend this proposal to the less-than-innocent, on the proviso that it’s fair that the state should have some claim to the DNA records of those who have committed a crime, given our knowledge about recidivism rates. As a starter for ten, it would seem to make sense for the police to be allowed to retain DNA records without rental payment for the same period as the original sentence (whether served or suspended), possibly with a minimum term of (say) six years.
Would you choose to take such a payment?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Christie Malry. Christie Malry said: New blog post: DNA for hire http://bit.ly/9ao162 [...]
LIke the idea of the state paying for the privilege. Any suggestion of the State paying the individual in acknowledgment of the shortcomings of the CJS is always good for sending the Guardianistas into a hissy fit. They can be relied upon to bleat about such payments being a drain on the public purse whilst neglecting to acknowledge that most of those who complain are a far bigger drain with their public sector non-jobs.