DNA/fingerprint databases Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jamie
Badges: 18
#21
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#21
(Original post by psychic_satori)
It's rather expensive to process DNA evidence, though. It would be difficult to keep the same quality standards if there was suddenly an even greater demand for DNA evidence processing.
we would simply be forced to expand our DNA profiling systems, and IT syustems (remember comparison is computerised).

It would be a big deterrent (especially if a very public 'we will find the smallest evidence campaign were run) and highly useful in catching some of the most heinous criminals - the rapists, murderers etc.
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 13 years ago
#22
(Original post by foolfarian)
we would simply be forced to expand our DNA profiling systems, and IT syustems (remember comparison is computerised).
Even if comparison is computerized, you still need people to prepare the samples to be analyzed. They must follow a rather rigorous standard operating procedure for all preparations to be admissible in court, at least in America. I'd assume that similar standards would exist in the UK. Also, even with the most advanced equipment, it takes a good while for a computer to match two unknown samples.

It would be a big deterrent (especially if a very public 'we will find the smallest evidence campaign were run) and highly useful in catching some of the most heinous criminals - the rapists, murderers etc.
I don't know about that. I think most people who commit crimes aren't necessarily worrying about the consequences, as much as they just commit the crime regardless of the consequences.
0
Agha Zain
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 13 years ago
#23
(Original post by psychic_satori)
I agree that I could be a useful tool, but I don't like the principle of treating every citizen as a possible suspect without reason.
Yes, I agree. You must play CSI and I bet you will agree that the DNA and fingerprint system is good.

Zain
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#24
Report 13 years ago
#24
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Scott Peterson should not have been convicted based on the forensic evidence.
But you agreed with Mr. Farian on the need for a national DNA database. DNA evidence is forensic, as is Scott Peterson's concrete anchors and little threads of laci's hair.......No?

BTW, to you figure Scott was innocent??
Douglas
Badges: 0
#25
Report 13 years ago
#25
(Original post by foolfarian)
There is a great deal of evidence showing that crimes are invariably commited by repeat offenders. So why not just have a record of them in case they commit a crime.

where is the harm to the innocent 'hard working' individual?
I doubt that your lib dems would agree with that.
Douglas
Badges: 0
#26
Report 13 years ago
#26
(Original post by psychic_satori)
It's rather expensive to process DNA evidence, though. .
I think that DNA testing will be as simple as blood testing in the very near future.
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 13 years ago
#27
(Original post by Douglas)
But you agreed with Mr. Farian on the need for a national DNA database. DNA evidence is forensic, as is Scott Peterson's concrete anchors and little threads of laci's hair.......No?
No, I said it would probably help. That doesn't mean I approve of actually implementing one. The evidence in Peterson's case wasn't exactly incriminating, though. When you look at the overall evidence picture, I do not believe that there was enough to convict him of the charges.

BTW, to you figure Scott was innocent??
What, personally? I doubt it, but personal opinion has nothing to do with the courts. The important thing is that the evidence against him was not substantial enough to convict him of murdering his wife, IMO.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 13 years ago
#28
(Original post by Douglas)
I think that DNA testing will be as simple as blood testing in the very near future.
One of my professors applied for a research grant for investigating techniques to simplify DNA fingerprinting. I'm hoping it's approved, because then I may have the chance to work on it, which would be totally awesome!

[Yes, I did use the phrase "totally awesome" in an unironic way. I think I need to kill myself now. ]
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#29
Report 13 years ago
#29
(Original post by psychic_satori)
One of my professors applied for a research grant for investigating techniques to simplify DNA fingerprinting. I'm hoping it's approved, because then I may have the chance to work on it, which would be totally awesome!

[Yes, I did use the phrase "totally awesome" in an unironic way. I think I need to kill myself now. ]
Satori, I hope your professor get's the grant....THAT would be totally AWESOME. Hey, the way I see it, the code has been broken, it's just the deciphering that needs to be speeded up. I know it'll happen, I hope the professor get's a chance.
Douglas
Badges: 0
#30
Report 13 years ago
#30
(Original post by psychic_satori)
The important thing is that the evidence against him was not substantial enough to convict him of murdering his wife, IMO.
Well, he had an attitude problem. Had he looked a little more sorrowful, repentant and pleasant, the jury would have let him off the hook. IMO
Jamie
Badges: 18
#31
Report Thread starter 13 years ago
#31
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Even if comparison is computerized, you still need people to prepare the samples to be analyzed. They must follow a rather rigorous standard operating procedure for all preparations to be admissible in court, at least in America. I'd assume that similar standards would exist in the UK. Also, even with the most advanced equipment, it takes a good while for a computer to match two unknown samples.
Well as DNA fingerprinting is a British invention, and was used first by the British police, I would hope we managed to get the procedures right...
shiny
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 13 years ago
#32
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Also, even with the most advanced equipment, it takes a good while for a computer to match two unknown samples.
Why? If the database used some form of hash table it would be very quick to search the database even if it contains millions of entries. Genbank and co use hashing I believe.
0
shiny
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#33
Report 13 years ago
#33
(Original post by eurasianfeline)
Also, obtaining a person's genetic data can be dangerous in the sense that furutre technology might allow the "cloning" of humans just by DNA synthesis and inserting that DNA into an ovum. The result can be disastrous.
wtf?! what does dna fingerprinting have to do with human cloning? :confused:
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 13 years ago
#34
(Original post by foolfarian)
Well as DNA fingerprinting is a British invention, and was used first by the British police, I would hope we managed to get the procedures right...
It's not only a matter of getting them right, it has to be done with certain formalities based on the lab's validated SOP. Otherwise, the quality of the evidence would easily be called into question. The ensuing doubt would be such that evidence would be inadmissible.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 13 years ago
#35
(Original post by shiny)
Why? If the database used some form of hash table it would be very quick to search the database even if it contains millions of entries. Genbank and co use hashing I believe.
Well, I'm not really a computer person, so I can't say that I know much about the technical aspect, but I think the problem lies more in the quality of the DNA recovered from a crime scene isn't necessarily as pure as the DNA samples that the NIH is working with. There are more problems encountered with a sample that is recovered from a crime scene or other outside setting, because additional DNA samples can be present in the sample in unknown ratios.
0
shiny
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 13 years ago
#36
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Well, I'm not really a computer person, so I can't say that I know much about the technical aspect, but I think the problem lies more in the quality of the DNA recovered from a crime scene isn't necessarily as pure as the DNA samples that the NIH is working with. There are more problems encountered with a sample that is recovered from a crime scene or other outside setting, because additional DNA samples can be present in the sample in unknown ratios.
That is a problem with the DNA collection/preparation then not computing power.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 13 years ago
#37
(Original post by shiny)
That is a problem with the DNA collection/preparation then not computing power.
Yes, but as a result, computing is less effective than it would otherwise be. Goodness, don't get defensive about your machines!
0
shiny
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#38
Report 13 years ago
#38
(Original post by psychic_satori)
Yes, but as a result, computing is less effective than it would otherwise be. Goodness, don't get defensive about your machines!
Yes but your original post was talking about computing time.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 13 years ago
#39
(Original post by shiny)
Yes but your original post was talking about computing time.
If you look at the original post, and then read my follow-ups to your explanation, it would take a while for a computer to match two unknown samples, because of the extraneous factors inherent with outside-laboratory collections. I meant no offense to computers by it.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#40
Report 13 years ago
#40
(Original post by psychic_satori)
It's not only a matter of getting them right, it has to be done with certain formalities based on the lab's validated SOP. Otherwise, the quality of the evidence would easily be called into question. The ensuing doubt would be such that evidence would be inadmissible.
Good point, in OJ's trial, they had enough blood to identify a string of DNA that put the odds at 5 billion to one. But Johnnie Cochrane (may he rest in peace) managed to convince the jury that the blood had been contaminated via improper handling.
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (105)
19.48%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (222)
41.19%
Nope, not that interesting (212)
39.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise