THERE'S A FINE BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS AND SECURITY

Recently the Justice Minister commented that Scottish families were
less protected than their counterparts in England and Wales owing to
police south of the border being able to retain DNA samples and
fingerprints of every arrested person for all time. It is too simple
to say the police asked for this and, in the interest of protecting
society, we feel obliged to give them it. Many things could be done to
make our communities safer but we do not implement them because of
ethical or human rights reasons. For example, we could drug-test every
worker in Scotland on a regular basis and sack those who fail.
Unemployment figures would soar but it would have a major impact on
the war on drugs. Yet we do not do it.

The UK has the largest DNA database of any country, with the highest
proportion of citizens on the system; that is, more than 5% of the
population. The use of DNA in crime investigation has been an
indisputable success and it has also been instrumental in exonerating
those wrongly convicted. Home Office figures show samples taken from
individuals on arrest but with no subsequent proceedings, being linked
with historical crime scenes. What is not clear, however, is the
number of persons with no previous convictions who were not proceeded
against but were later linked to a crime. More research has to be
carried out to enable informed decisions.

Citizens are uncomfortable with the pace and direction of government
policy in this branch of science. We talk in terms of being able to
identify young children as potential criminals and predicting the
surname of offenders from DNA. It is seen as part of the
out-of-control surveillance society. Concerns also exist as to the
commercial and governmental future use of such information. It also
tests the Scottish flagship Children's Panel concept of giving our
young a start in life by not putting them through courts to save them
having criminal convictions. Yet we propose to keep their DNA and
fingerprints for life -- just in case.

Citizens must ask themselves: what if it happened to me? These ideas
sound good until it affects your son or daughter. There have been
instances south of the border when innocent individuals have applied
to have their DNA and fingerprints destroyed and have been refused.
Internationally, there are examples of people being wrongly identified
as a result of DNA mix-ups. Not forgetting the ongoing debate on the
fallibility of fingerprints.

Having a professional and comprehensive regulatory body with
responsibility for all aspects of forensic science would go some way
to raising levels of confidence. A regular review of data being held
should consider the length of time samples need to be retained. A
blanket policy of keeping information indefinitely for those who have
been found guilty and those who have not been proceeded against cannot
be right. If we must have a database, then the least we can do is make
it as fair as possible.

In Canada, DNA samples are taken from individuals only following
conviction of certain designated offences and on the instruction of
the court. On passing the legislation, the Canadian parliament was
striving to achieve a balance between individual rights and the
protection of society, ever mindful of a constitutional challenge that
they were in breach of the nation's bill of rights.

The primary legislation was introduced into the Canadian justice
system in 2000 and empirical research has shown that it has been
successful in identifying individuals responsible for serious crimes.
However, the Canadian authorities believe the success rate can be
improved by expanding the list of designated offences for which DNA
samples are mandatory on conviction. What is not on the agenda, and is
unpalatable at the present time, is the compulsory DNA sampling and
retention of individuals who have not been proceeded against.

The current DNA and fingerprint debate should be a wake-up call to us
all and the much-cliched phrase "sleepwalking into a surveillance
society" should be given the credence it deserves. There should be a
wide debate on the issues and citizens need to be fully informed and
allowed the opportunity to give their consent to relinquishing their
rights.

This is more than forensic sampling of individuals on the periphery of
the criminal justice system; it is a significant step towards losing
some of our rights and freedoms and needs to be carefully scrutinised
by all citizens. Maybe a bill of rights chronicling our individual
freedom is needed to safeguard us all from government interference.
Either that or put the whole population on the database -- at least it
would be fairer.

Dr Daniel Donnelly is a former police officer and academic in police
studies.