Wednesday 11 November 2009

DNA; Do Not Argue

I heard the Sarah Montague's interview this morning with Julie Bindel, a spokewoman from Justice For Women* arguing in support of the proposed rules on retention of the DNA samples of the innocent. Ms Bindel believed that a 6 year retention period for the DNA samples of those arrested for any offence whatsoever was reasonable. She offered two arguments; that it had helped solve crimes such as the Sally Ann Bowman murder, and that it would in fact assist in proving innocence.

Chris Grayling was the next interviewee, and immediately squashed the "proof of innocence" argument, pointing out that a sample taken at the time would be perfectly adequate to do so and that an historic register was in no way necessary for this.

That leaves the Bowman case for me. Now, I know the pub where Mark Dixie (the murderer) worked before his arrest so the case has stayed in my mind. What actually happened there was that Dixie was arrested for an unrelated assault, some time after the murder. His DNA was taken during that arrest, and it matched the samples taken from Miss Bowman's murder. He was therefore investigated for the murder, and convicted.

At no point in the Bowman investigation did the police obtain Dixie's details from a sample taken from a previous arrest that had not led to conviction. The Bowman case therefore offers no support for retaining samples taken from the innocent.

Indeed, the quote offered by the Superintendent who headed the Bowman investigation was
It is my opinion that a national DNA register — with all its appropriate safeguards — could have identified Sally Anne's murderer within 24 hours. Instead it took nearly nine months before Mark Dixie was identified, and almost two-and-a-half years for justice to be done.
Note, he calls for a national register - presumably one containing the DNA of every citizen, not one simply containing the DNA of arrestees. Even then, the benefit is only a matter of months; he perjoratively points to the over 2 year delay in obtaining justice, but that is unrelated to the DNA issue.

So Bowman offers no support for Ms Bindel, and she is left with no examples. She is left making a hypothetical argument, so I can in return. If, as the hypothesis states, those arrested but not convicted are likely to offend again, then it follows that there will be a further opportunity to arrest them. Hence, their DNA will be sampled again, and can (at that stage) be compared to past crime scene samples. Therefore, if the hypothesis advanced in favour of retention is correct, then retention is ipso facto unnecessary.

Ms Bindel's final rhetorical flourish was that she has never heard an argument in favour of not retaining. Montague rightly criticised this, pointing out that surely it is for Government to make the case in favour of such a scheme, but was ignored (presumably because she was right). Well, Ms Bindel, how about this one:

DNA matching is not perfect. The error rate is not settled, but estimates have varied between "almost none" and "one in a million". At the lower end of that scale, the number of people in the UK whose DNA would have matched the samples from Miss Bowman's murder is about 60. Of those 60, at least about 10 would have been within easy access of the London location of the murder. Only one of those was Mark Dixie.

This argument is not, of course, hypothetical. I can only suggest that Ms Bindel asks the Midlands teenager whose DNA matched that of the Omagh bomber what he would have done had he lived in Ulster.

----------------------------------------------
*Not, as La Montague introduced her, Women Against Rape, who are (presumably) splitters in the same mould as the People's Front of Judea.

27 comments:

  1. Good post. It is worth remembering that nobody ever has to prove their innocence. It is for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amazing. Listening to Julie Bindel she admits that what she is supporting is discriminatory - though she gets around this by supporting a DNA database containing everyone's details in the country! That would mean that every time DNA samples were found in a crime numerous innocent people would have evidence against them, simply because of the DNA match. They would then need to prove their innocence. Is that really what we want? It is plainly unjust.

    Either way, what is proposed is unjust. By definition, justice is not the kind of category that can be applied to some and not to others. So why should anyone take Justice for Women seriously, if they themselves do not take justice seriously?

    A good example of someone cutting off the branch on which they are sitting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Absolutely, Blue. We tend to forget that one. It was good to hear Grayling remind us of that point.

    Albert - yes, her stance was quite literally incredible. She seemed to have the opinion that it was unfair, discriminatory, and right. So maybe there is in fact little value in me pointing out why it is also factually and logically incorrect - she might see that as a good thing!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's the usual problem P that in secular Britain morality is unmoored from any metaphysical reality or realist truth claim. As such, it is reduced to a set of rhetorical power bids. No one will want to support justice for society if in so doing they can be made to look as though they are opposing justice for women.

    The fact that on this scheme "justice" has lost any conceptual content for women or society is irrelevent: it's the force of the rhetoric that counts in a society that bans ultimate truth claims.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are quite right to point out that Ms Bindel's arguments were flawed if she was relying solely on the case of Sally Ann Bowman. I also agree with you, BE and Mr Grayling that a database is not required to prove innocence.

    However, there is a serious undercurrent here that will not go away; the police find it difficult to catch those serious sex offenders who have psychological problems and operate alone. They commit recurrent crimes but there is no doubt that with this technology and science, together with the knowledge that demonstrates the behaviour profile of those that become serial offenders, a DNA database ia a cost effective and expedient way of identifying people who perpetrate these crimes.

    As Chris Grayling pointed out it is a question of balance. He indicated that we are all now agreed that it is unacceptable for an innocent's DNA record to be held indefinitely and that it should not be retained if that individual has only been suspected of a minor offence and subsequently released without charge. I totally agree with that. However, I would support the view that those suspected of a violent offence and arrested, together with all those convicted, should have their DNA retained. The police must be able to justify why the person was arrested in relation to a serious offence and this suggests to me that it is highly likely that within this group, while there will be innocent people, it is highly likely there will be offenders who have escaped justice on this occasion.

    For the innocent, being held on a DNA database should not impinge on their lives. The benefits for women, the police and taxpayers outweigh the drawbacks on civil liberties in my view. I think the proposals to copy the measures taken in Scotland seem fair. Perhaps five years should be reduced to three years, but I am not going to quibble over that.

    So, Patently, please put forward whether you would have a scheme, what it would be like and how you justify your stance, so you don't just give Ms Bindel a hard time.

    (Don't you just love me?) ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Measured, I don't agree that this is a question of balance - at least not at first. The key issue for me is that you cannot serve justice by acting unjustly. Everyone seems to be agreed that keeping the DNA of the innocent on file simply because they have been arrested for something is unjust. To avoid this injustice, one would need to keep the the DNA of the whole population on file, but that would lead to further injustices and so can be ruled out also.

    If the justice system isn't based on justice, wherein lies its legitimacy and how do you prevent its committing grotesque violations of justice?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everyone seems to be agreed that keeping the DNA of the innocent on file simply because they have been arrested for something is unjust.

    Everyone? Not me, not Chris Grayling, nor Ms Bindel.... Those on the DNA database are not a purely random group. They have been arrested and have been under suspicion, Albert.

    Isn't there an injustice when a women suffers physically and mentally and the perpetrator is not found, yet it is within our power to greatly increase the chances of identifying the offender and bringiing him to justice? Does this not protect other women from similiar crimes? Two sides, Albert, even to justice.

    Let's see what Patently proposes; after all it is his taxes in part that pay for police investigations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Measured, Ms Bindel admitted it was "discriminatory" (her word). Given the (clumsy) way that word is usually used today I take it she means "unjust". Chris Grayling more or less admitted that even what he was proposing undermined the principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. That principle of justice is precisely there to protect those who are under suspicion - it doesn't have much use for anyone else.

    There is certainly an injustice when a woman "suffers physically and mentally and the perpetrator is not found." But that injustice, grave as it is, cannot be used to justify further injustice without undermining its own value. It is exactly the value of justice due to such women that I am trying to defend, by arguing against injustice generally. There certainly can be two sides to justice, but not two conflicting sides.

    But if one doesn't think it's unjust, then a quite different discussion follows. But such a position will not be defended with reference to purely pragmatic arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...Julie Bindel, a spokewoman from Justice For Women*..."

    Ahhh, Julie Bindel. Her columns in CiF are always a pleasure and a joy.

    "She seemed to have the opinion that it was unfair, discriminatory, and right."

    Yes. That's not an unusual stance for Bindel, if the person most likely to be affected by whatever it is has male genitalia.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Isn't there an injustice when a women suffers physically and mentally and the perpetrator is not found, yet it is within our power to greatly increase the chances of identifying the offender and bringiing him to justice?"

    Can we leave sex out of it (oo-er!).

    The injustice isn't greater if it's a woman on the receiving end, despite the frothings of La Bindel and her ghastly coterie of harridens.

    Quite simply, this IS an unjust measure. What happened to British Justice that we could even conceive of the notion of retaining everyone's DNA to offset the possibility that they may, at some future point, commit a crime?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @JuliaM

    I use the example of sex offenders as sex offences appear one category of crime where a DNA database does appear worthwhile.

    I think you use of 'everyone's' is not what is being suggested.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think you use of 'everyone's' is not what is being suggested.

    I wasn't so sure - at least not with regard to Bindel.

    In any case, if not everyone's DNA is to be kept, what is the reason for keeping the DNA of some rather than others? Those found guilty of crimes would be a good reason.

    What's the reason for discriminating between those who are innocent?

    I'm just worried that what's going on here, is that some of those who have not been convicted (despite a prosecution's best efforts - or the police's recognition that they don't have enough evidence even to bring a case), are really still being regarded as guilty. That, it seems to me, is the only reason for discriminating against them.

    In such a world, they are presumed guilty, even before they have had the chance to commit a crime, let alone be convicted of one. And all because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the police made an error, or were openly unjust, someone made a false accusation against them etc.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's more important? Having records on a database (they already have access to our phone records, internet details etc..) which should not impose any burden on the innocent or letting serial offenders escape, women get scared, additional costs to the taxpayer and resources tied up with police investigations.....but it may be the thin end of the wedge. I suggest we have a limited DNA database with conditions imposed and an independent auditor.

    (I apologise for my poor typing today but I am working on something else and I want to get that work completed so consequently I keep hurrying this, at least it is not my handwriting. TTFN)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Measured, don't worry about your typing, my spelling is usually atroshus!

    Isn't there a danger that having the DNA of some innocent people may mean the police go after them instead of the real villain because of a false match? Perhaps the guilty man would then be free to commit further crimes, while the innocent man - given the wrong circumstances might even be convicted.

    The way around this would be to get everyone on the DNA database - and that would surely raise the number of convictions in general. And if being on the DNA database is such a small thing that we are prepared to discriminate against some of the innocent to allow it, what possible objection could there be to putting us all on it?

    ReplyDelete
  15. P.S. Good luck with the work! I'm doing an essay, though this is more interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now, now, @Albert do not overeact like @JuliaM. :-)

    The world is moving on and our knowledfe is increasing. We have to adapt and adopt suitable policies. We have the Data Protection Act for data held on us. Is our DNA data so very different?

    (I am writing up on a defendant I had seen before; they do reoffend. Also listening to pmqs.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where's the over-reacting?! I was just pointing out that the pragmatic arguments don't go all one way! ;-)

    I am writing up on a defendant I had seen before; they do reoffend.

    I don't doubt it. But what about innocent people? Do they reoffend?

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I use the example of sex offenders as sex offences appear one category of crime where a DNA database does appear worthwhile."

    As Albert points out, why this crime and not others? I can see why the likes of Bindel are pushing for it, but I fail to see why anyone with a half a brain would consider it an exception to any other crime...

    "Having records on a database (they already have access to our phone records, internet details etc..) which should not impose any burden on the innocent..."

    Apart from the burden of being on a database when you are innocent, that is..?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The world is moving on and our knowledfe is increasing. We have to adapt and adopt suitable policies."

    Let's adopt the policy that should result from the damning European Court of Human Rights judgement then...

    "We have the Data Protection Act for data held on us. Is our DNA data so very different?"

    Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Very good. :-)

    Sadly certain people have a particular propensity to offend in certain types of crime. They can be identified before they are convicted of a crime (not just by cruelty to animals etc. but violent people are violent, depraved people are depraved...). How to define this group is certainly not without its difficulties, but should we deny the police from keeping records on these people? Is DNA data so very different from other data? Should they be allowed to take photgraphs of innocent people?

    Albert, our society draws the line on many issues and does not go the whole way (eg abortion *duck head*.....:-))so I am not advocating a wide scheme. Also bear in mind no one is going to be convicted solely on DNA data. What I am saying is that if the police want to retain the DNA data on those they have suspicions about AND have arrested them for an offence in specified category of serious crime, they should be entitled to do so for a pre-determined period assuming there are safeguards in place. This is regardless of whether that person has convictions or not.

    Now are you really arguing against me? Do you have no faith in the way police behave?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hello - been out for much of today... gosh you have all been busy!

    Measured asked what I proposed; that is a reasonable question and I should answer. My preferred system is in fact quite a simple one:

    - all arrestees are sampled, and the samples compared with profiles obtained from all past unsolved crimes.

    - if the arrest results in a conviction or any other admission of guilt (such as a caution) then the sample is retained indefinitely. We all have the choice to not commit a crime, therefore those who commit a crime can be deemed to consent to the retention of their DNA on the database.

    - once the investigation that followed the arrest is closed, then if the person is not guilty the the sample/record is destroyed. Closure might result from acquittal, or the conviction of another, or a decision to NFA the case or otherwise give up. In practice, this might end up pretty close to the Conservative proposals as enunciated this morning.

    This way, if the police think someone is a crook who will serially re-offend, the message is simple; get a conviction. For something. Anything. Then, the DNA can be retained forever.

    Note that Mark Dixie had been investigated several times before he murdered Miss Bowman. The problem was not that the samples were not kept from those investigations, but that they gave up before convicting him. If he had been in prison as a result of those earlier offences, the Bowman case would not have been solved quickly; she would still be alive.

    So, the other way to put this message for the police is "Start enforcing the law, please".

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Sadly certain people have a particular propensity to offend in certain types of crime. They can be identified before they are convicted of a crime (not just by cruelty to animals etc. but violent people are violent, depraved people are depraved...)."

    Violence and depravity are already crimes. If the police can't get convictions, they need to up their game.

    Allowing them to take the easier route of 'We'll scoop up all the DNA then figure out who did what later' isn't exactly encouraging a good 'service', is it?

    And yet, DNA is different. Very different.

    "Do you have no faith in the way police behave?"

    Not lately, no. We've seen how targets and politically-motivated campaigns have caused them to behave. Do we want more of that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Patently,

    All arrestees are sampled, Hang on. Some of them are innocent! Why do the police have to go and find them all?

    the message is simple; get a conviction. For something. Anything. Then, the DNA can be retained forever. The system is already warped. Why warp it more? Not fair.

    Do you really think DNA data should be allowed to be retained on the myriad of those convicted of minor offences? Your scheme would allow this. I can understand others' having qualms about this too.

    Your broad brush may need trimming. Perhaps the police have to justify why they want to keep records? I am not sure who to though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi Measured.

    As I understand it, all arrestees are sampled now. So in that regard, my proposal is "no change".

    I do not see the incentive to convict as being a warping of the system. What it entails is that when the police know of someone who is (in their opinion) committing arrestable offences and likely to continue doing, they should be arresting them, bringing them before the Courts, and securing convictions. That, surely, is the purpose of our criminal justice system. If it is not doing that now, it is about time it started doing so.

    And yes, if someone commits an offence, I am content for their DNA to be retained. If the offence is so minor that punishment seems over-the-top, then the appropriate question is whether that should be an offence at all, not whether we should retain the records of who committed it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I have had enough of arguing on 'Do Not Argue'.

    So, let's think about the real world. A serious crime is committed. The police arrest ten suspects. None have previous convictions. All are released without charge. The crime remains unsolved. Do you knowingly reduce the chances of a conviction by not having known suspects (innocent or otherwise) on a DNA database)? Do you start chasing or provoking each of those ten men to gain a minor conviction?

    Finally, @JuliaM how is DNA data different? You keeping say 'Yes' but do not follow through.

    As for me, I am signing off. Yes, you can keep a copy of this email with my signature on it and my paw prints all over it, if you can read MY handwriting. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry everyone, I've been away and missed a lot. I know Measured has finished on this thread, but may I be allowed to respond to a couple of points she raised?

    How to define this group [offenders] is certainly not without its difficulties, but should we deny the police from keeping records on these people?

    Absolutely not. I agree that those who fall into this category should have their details kept, my complaint is that those who are innocent do not fall into this category.

    Also bear in mind no one is going to be convicted solely on DNA data.

    But that means either the evidence without DNA data is sufficient or the DNA is somehow decisive. Now if the DNA data is decisive, has been held unjustly, and is a mismatch, that's a real problem.

    Do you have no faith in the way police behave?

    My worry is not with the police. My worry is with what future politicians may do with this kind of data. How they might abuse it, need not be clear. All we need to realise is how quickly times can change. Who would have predicted the number of freedoms we have lost over the past 12 years?

    For example, who would have predicted then that a 67 year old Grandmother would have been questioned by the police in relation to "hate-crime" because she complained to her council about their decision to allow a gay-pride march? I don't agree with what she said, but doesn't it just show we cannot tell who will be the future victims of future politicians? When it comes to innocent people, information as personal, and as potentially revealing as DNA should not be available to politicians.

    Abortion is a good example (there's no need to duck, I congratulate you on making the point!) of how our society and politicians are so content to discriminate against certain groups - especially if those groups have no political muscle. If in the future some of those groups can be identified genetically, woe betide anyone who has DNA records stored by the authorities.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Finally, @JuliaM how is DNA data different? You keeping say 'Yes' but do not follow through. "

    Because DNA data is me. My whole identity, and my parent's identity. In some cases, a predictor of my future.

    It isn't my transient thoughts or notations, as with the data collected under the DPA.

    And that is the reason that it should never, ever be collected and stored as routine. When it is, we lose what we've had for so many years; a free society.

    ReplyDelete