If you get arrested by the police for whatever reason,once your booked in they take your photo, fingerprints and DNA sample. Then later on its proven and your cleared of the conviction and let go with out charge.  The police should take your DNA sample off there database..

    [e.g.]  They have my DNA I wasnt charged, years on and I apply for a Job that requires a CRB check,  because of my DNA on there database that could indicate that I have been in trouble with the police and convicted of a crime then I loose the chance of that job all for wrongly kept information being held on there database.

Keep the DNA samples of convicted criminals remove the DNA samples of innocent people

Why the contribution is important

My idea is important because why should the police keep DNA samples from innocent people that have never been charged with an offense before.  The DNA samples do solve crimes and thats why they should keep convicted criminals DNA samples on there database just incase they offend again,  but why keep innocent peoples is this incase they just might offend. It states innocent until proven guilty but by keeping the innocent peoples DNA samples this states your guilty.

Current rating

Average score : 4.5
Based on : 14 votes
Posted by ucmdl61 August 13, 2010 at 18:03
I totally agree the 'OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION' section of the CRB form is a flaw and open to abuse. Anyone can make any allegation and even if someone is charged, arrested but does not have conviction or caution or charges dropped, the information must not appear in the enhanced CRB disclosure. It appears as if the Chief Police Officer has more powers than the court!!!!!!!!!!

I believe the CRB form needs to be updated and the discretionary powers of the Chief Police Officer should be revoked with immediate effect. Whistleblowing issue is worth mentioning here. At times, hardworking NHS staff whistleblow in good faith but sometimes criminal charges are pressed against them. If after raising concern,an NHS employee is subjected to a criminal offence and later on charged but the case discontinues or leads to no conviction/caution,the information must not show up in enhanced CRB. If they are not supported, it will lead to unnecessary litigations and often dire consequences on public funding which can be sorted out with careful and sensible changes in the legislation

In this current climate of economic slowdown, more and more people should be encouraged to work and the legislation should not make citizen unnecessarily criminal only on the basis of unfounded allegations, malicious prosecution, arrests or charges. The CRB form must be amended and the 'OTHER RELEVANT INFORMAION' section should be removed from the form. Furthermore the police must not keep record of unfounded allegation, malicious prosecution as well as the DNA. If the law allows, the CRB disclosure clause should be scrapped altogether.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by beady August 13, 2010 at 20:31
DNA should not be retained for innocent/not charged or not guilty.
What do you expect when a lot of chief constables act like the taliban

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by mhouse August 13, 2010 at 22:52
Remove people who have not been convicted from the DNA database.Please protect their human rights.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by cabraynsmith August 15, 2010 at 16:12
I see no reason to make it reasonable to keep someone's DNA record on a database if they have not been convicted of a crime. If you are found not to be guilty then you are not guilty according to the law.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by bwoodward August 16, 2010 at 16:35
DNA, fingerprints and photo of innocent citizens should not be kept on the police database. If a person has never been in trouble with the police ever in their life why should his/her DNA etc. be kept on their system. Apparently they can only be removed if the person has exceptional circumstances - the interpretation of the 3 exceptional circumstances is down to the Chief Constable and it appears the innocent person has no chance whatsoever of achieving one of these exceptional circumstances.

Why should an innocent person be treated in this way.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Posted by Kaboodle August 22, 2010 at 17:50
Personally I think DNA should only be retained for relevant convictions such as murder, rape, sexual assault etc, as is the case in many other countries. It is these crimes DNA is mostly used to find suspects for. In the case of most crimes, DNA evidance will not be available. Searching the entire DNA database is a time cosuming and costly measure, so will only be used for serious crimes where alternative means of finding suspects will be difficult. Someone convicted of a minor crime is no more likely to commit a serious crime than someone who is innocent. Many serious crimes are commited by people with no previous convictions, so the DNA database is of no use at all. Actually I do wonder how many crimes are solved using the DNA database (where the DNA from the crimescene matches someone on the database who would not have been suspected otherwise). The real value of DNA is the ability to match DNA of suspects to that from the crime scene, yet this does not need the database as DNA can be taken from suspects.
I actually feel the database leads to an increase in arrests, as police seek to obtain DNA for the database. I know someone who was arrested "to secure evidance" when the only evidance taken was DNA and Fingerprints, despite them being irrelevant to the "crime" yet on a second occasion when were suspected of a similar "crime" (an ex was making false accusations) they were not arrested but interviewed at home under caution. This really says to me that the only reason for arrest was to get their DNA on file, there was no other reason for it.

Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate

Please log in to add comments and rate ideas