Support ID Cards and a compulsory National DNA database
Chris said:-
"If you have nothing to hide there's nothing to be afraid of".
that used to me my way of thinking !
Well that is still my way of thinking - I am in fvaour of both a National Identity Cards and a Natioinal DNA databse.
I realise that this of course puts me in conflict with current party poliicy and beoynd the pale as far as far as many members are concerned, but I am indeed very much in favour of a liberal society and against any drift towards a more authoritarian or totalitarian society.
Our defence against authoritarianism does not lie in preventing and outlawing the uptake of techonological techniques such as Bio-identification and DNA fingerprinting. Bio identification has in fact for thousands of years been the main means of personal ID - the information is in our faces. Our real defence lies in the protection of those Democratic institutions and ideas and those liberal principles which we generally claim that Britain is famous for.
That this government has tried to breach some of the most basic of these principles is a disgrace and a great shame upon the pusilanimous Labour MPs who allowed such measures to be passed in the Commons. "Freedom of Speech (especially outside the House of Commons ) , the right to privacy, the principle of innocence until proved guilty, freedom from detention without charge These rights are not whimsical or self-indulgent. They are substantial and necessary" Sir Menzies Campbell
However we do not defend ourselves against such intrusions on our liberties opposing the means to do but by opposing vigourously any decisiions to use those means for such purposes.
Many women have found that the greatest intrusion upon their human rights is the ability of a rapist to attack them and remain undiscovered because his DNA is not on the Police Database and has perhaps even removed because he was charged with a sexual offence in the past found not guilty for whatever reason and subsequently had his genetic fingerprint removed.
A verdict of 'Not Guilty' does not mean 'Found Innocent' but essentially not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps we should allow Juries to bring in a verdict of 'Innocent' it would be fairer on those people who are wrongly accused of crimes and then aquited.
"If you have nothing to hide there's nothing to be afraid of".
that used to me my way of thinking !
Well that is still my way of thinking - I am in fvaour of both a National Identity Cards and a Natioinal DNA databse.
I realise that this of course puts me in conflict with current party poliicy and beoynd the pale as far as far as many members are concerned, but I am indeed very much in favour of a liberal society and against any drift towards a more authoritarian or totalitarian society.
Our defence against authoritarianism does not lie in preventing and outlawing the uptake of techonological techniques such as Bio-identification and DNA fingerprinting. Bio identification has in fact for thousands of years been the main means of personal ID - the information is in our faces. Our real defence lies in the protection of those Democratic institutions and ideas and those liberal principles which we generally claim that Britain is famous for.
That this government has tried to breach some of the most basic of these principles is a disgrace and a great shame upon the pusilanimous Labour MPs who allowed such measures to be passed in the Commons. "Freedom of Speech (especially outside the House of Commons ) , the right to privacy, the principle of innocence until proved guilty, freedom from detention without charge These rights are not whimsical or self-indulgent. They are substantial and necessary" Sir Menzies Campbell
However we do not defend ourselves against such intrusions on our liberties opposing the means to do but by opposing vigourously any decisiions to use those means for such purposes.
Many women have found that the greatest intrusion upon their human rights is the ability of a rapist to attack them and remain undiscovered because his DNA is not on the Police Database and has perhaps even removed because he was charged with a sexual offence in the past found not guilty for whatever reason and subsequently had his genetic fingerprint removed.
A verdict of 'Not Guilty' does not mean 'Found Innocent' but essentially not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps we should allow Juries to bring in a verdict of 'Innocent' it would be fairer on those people who are wrongly accused of crimes and then aquited.
Tags: Cards, DNA, ID, database
Views: 13
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Baker on -
You make the mistake of assuming the National Identity scheme is just a technique. Yes we have used the physical body as a means of identification since time began, but we have not created a central Identity institution to centrally determine who we are. People a have been free to create their own ways of determining Identity. NO2ID is not against all biometric techniques, it’s about how the data is collected and used. If my Gym wants to have a fingerprint system then that's it's choice, it's only going to adminster my access to the Gym. Who knows what a future government might do with our fingerprint data. Personally i'd choose not to goto that Gym, but others might and in a liberal society that's their choice.
The National Identity register represents a change in our relationship with the state. For the first time ever the state is saying this is the sole official record of your identity. Previously Identity was something more transient made up of the relationships we have with different entities. In a liberal society that’s how I think it should be, people should be free to determine their own ways of attributing and determining Identity and status. The creation of documents that prove ID rather than prove entitlement is quite knew also. Previously even something like a passport only proved you were under the protection of a particular state, or proved your entitlement for the purpose of travel. I have no problem with having documents that prove I can drive a car, or grant me right to travel but my essential rights and citizenship should not be determined centrally by a central government.
It would still be possible to collect DNA of suspects and check it against a register of crime scene samples and known criminals and delete it after without storing it on a register, just delete it straight away once you have done that.
As you are presumed innocent until convicted you cannot be found innocent. Giving suspects the legal status of a convicted criminal until they are found innocent sounds like a very illiberal measure to me. -
-
Permalink Reply by David Turner on -
Well I don't think a Post-Modernist approach to identity is going to get us anywhere:-) You have but one identity not a multitude.
Although your logical status with regard to any crime is indeed binary (Guilty or Innocent) to you, to the rest of the world it is in fact one of many. Innocent, not charged, charged, found guilty, not proven, found not guilty. Ignoring the reality of the situation helps no one.
The term 'Innocent until proven guilty' means that we treat people as if they are innocent. so of course you find someone to be proven innocent. -
-
Permalink Reply by James Baker on
-
What makes you think having a plurality of institutions, social relations and people determine your identity is post-modern? Identity is not a fixed static thing, but a series of relationships between an individual and their environment. That’s no more post-modern then say describing the process of erosion or the life-cycle of a plant. You could argue for immutable forms like Plato did, but even then in the material world we live in nothing is static, and everything is constantly changing and interacting.
Our personalities change over time with different experiences, our sexuality can change so can our physical bodies, our names and our addresses. Or as we grow old or are subjected to accident or disease. A Human cannot be solely defined by a card, or a database record held by a single institution that sets itself with the self-proclaimed authority to do so.
Your second point seems to contradict your first, I’m not sure how you can argue that with a crime there exists a plurality of statuses, yet Identity is a fixed static. You are either guilty or not guilty, and if a jury of your peers determines that beyond reasonable doubt you are guilty, you are convicted.
You don’t find people proven to be innocent at all, people are found ‘not guilty’ there is a logical distinction that is fundamental to how the entire legal system works. You have a very confusing understanding of how the law works in this country. Creating a new legal status of proven innocence is a dangerous threat to liberty, for starters people would be placed in the illogical position of having to prove a negative. -
-
Permalink Reply by John Bowen on -
'...the classic liberal belief in maximising the freedom of the individual, and protecting this freedom from all forms of coercion. The only condition is that the exercise of one person's freedom cannot be allowed to seriously curtail those of other individuals'..
Laws, D. (2004) Reclaiming Liberalism: a liberal agenda for the Liberal Democrats. In: Marshall, P..& Laws, D. (eds) The Orange Book - Reclaiming Liberalism. London, Profile Books. p.19
Thus with regards to ID cards, your views are clearly iliberalI. I belong to the law-abiding majority and resent the idea that I should be forced to have my details or DNA stored on a database when I have committed no crime. Especially due to the actions or even potential actions of a minority of law breakers.
The term 'Innocent until proven guilty' means that we treat people as if they are innocent. so of course you find someone to be proven innocent.'
This idea I also believe to be naive and dangerous. The assumption that someone must be 'proven innocent', implies that to some extent they are guilty! -
-
Permalink Reply by John Bowen on
-
Double post. Sorry!
-
-
Permalink Reply by David Turner on
-
James Elsdon-Baker said:Creating a new legal status of proven innocence is a dangerous threat to liberty, for starters people would be placed in the illogical position of having to prove a negative.
It is not illogical or imposible to prove a negative, I am sure that you can prove that you arenot female easily enough! Sometimes it is difficult, but so is proving that someone is guilty - which is precisely why the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. -
-
Permalink Reply by Harry Dienes on -
How? Actually that would be quite hard. You can prove you are male, and then through (a crude binary) elimination say not-female; but to directly prove you are not-female? I can't think of a way.
Likewise, how does one prove innocence? You can fail to prove guilt, and so by elimination say inncocent; this is why the default position should be inncent
David Turner said:James Elsdon-Baker said:Creating a new legal status of proven innocence is a dangerous threat to liberty, for starters people would be placed in the illogical position of having to prove a negative.
It is not illogical or imposible to prove a negative, I am sure that you can prove that you arenot female easily enough! Sometimes it is difficult, but so is proving that someone is guilty - which is precisely why the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. -
© 2012 Published and promoted by and on behalf of the Liberal Democrat
Powered by
