http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8354740.stm
Is it a 'human right' to less detectable in a criminal investigation?
Two extracts, for and against:
FOR
"Last year I was accused of assaulting a bouncer at a casino in Newcastle.
I hadn't done it, but I spent a night in a cell until the CCTV footage was available to prove that I hadn't.
Obviously I had my DNA sampled, they took a cheek swab from me. I didn't really mind at the time.
And I have no problem with them keeping my DNA profile indefinitely.
I would have thought that the only people worried about this happening are those who think that they may be likely to commit a crime in the future?
I appreciate there is a case for "innocent until proven guilty". But if you're innocent - why worry?"
AGAINST:
In 2004, I was attacked on my way home by two men, after which I was arrested on the charge of a affray.
My DNA was taken. But it was later proved that the police were mistaken in arresting me and no charge was brought.
I have since written to my MP several times about getting my DNA removed from the database.
I believed that police could not remain unbiased towards me or anyone on the database.
And this was confirmed two months ago...
Full article at link.
