05. May. 2010. – 16:32:17
The Fingerprint Branch at New Scotland Yard was created in July 1901 using the Henry System of Classification.
For many years previously various scientists and others had noted the basic structure of the human fingerprint; some had even mooted the possibility of its being used as an identifier. And as is well known a full fingerprint with all reference points matching is now considered to be literally foolproof evidence in a court of law.
Police National DNA Database..........With the advent of DNA sequencing there is an increased acceptance of DNA matching as evidence in important legal cases. Mathematics has been used as a tool for all manner of human understanding and use in the courtroom is frequent. The Sally Clark case is an illustration of how maths can go wrong in the wrong hands. The mathematics of matching various DNA samples in a legal context is based on explaining to a jury the chances of two samples of DNA; one from a crime scene and another from a suspect/defendant not belonging to the same individual. The art of making such explanations without compromising the statistical validity is akin to economists explaining to laymen the variations and resulting different conclusions between eg Keynsian and Monetrist Theories. And as we all know statistics and economics can mean what the speaker, whether lawyer or politician, wants it to mean. Reading various analyses of probability/DNA/Courts can be interesting for those with a clear head. This is an interesting case which came before the Court of Appeal in 2006.
The retention for six years in England & Wales [three years in Scotland] of DNA obtained from those arrested but never charged for an offence is a major issue for those concerned with civil liberties. It is a criminal offence to refuse to provide a DNA sample when requested by a police officer.
According to the Home Office, the powers which give police the authorisation to take DNA samples can only be used on the ground that they have reasonable basis for suspecting that the individual committed the crime. It was reported today that a man of previous good character who refused to give such a sample and admitted the offence was sentenced to a six month conditional discharge and £85.00 costs at North Lincolnshire Magistrates` Court. Now he has a criminal record and the consequences of such a record can be dire indeed. It is a moot point whether another disposal would have been more likely before another bench. In any event how many of us with "a libertarian bent" would refuse if placed in a similar situation?
For many years previously various scientists and others had noted the basic structure of the human fingerprint; some had even mooted the possibility of its being used as an identifier. And as is well known a full fingerprint with all reference points matching is now considered to be literally foolproof evidence in a court of law.
Police National DNA Database..........With the advent of DNA sequencing there is an increased acceptance of DNA matching as evidence in important legal cases. Mathematics has been used as a tool for all manner of human understanding and use in the courtroom is frequent. The Sally Clark case is an illustration of how maths can go wrong in the wrong hands. The mathematics of matching various DNA samples in a legal context is based on explaining to a jury the chances of two samples of DNA; one from a crime scene and another from a suspect/defendant not belonging to the same individual. The art of making such explanations without compromising the statistical validity is akin to economists explaining to laymen the variations and resulting different conclusions between eg Keynsian and Monetrist Theories. And as we all know statistics and economics can mean what the speaker, whether lawyer or politician, wants it to mean. Reading various analyses of probability/DNA/Courts can be interesting for those with a clear head. This is an interesting case which came before the Court of Appeal in 2006.
The retention for six years in England & Wales [three years in Scotland] of DNA obtained from those arrested but never charged for an offence is a major issue for those concerned with civil liberties. It is a criminal offence to refuse to provide a DNA sample when requested by a police officer.
According to the Home Office, the powers which give police the authorisation to take DNA samples can only be used on the ground that they have reasonable basis for suspecting that the individual committed the crime. It was reported today that a man of previous good character who refused to give such a sample and admitted the offence was sentenced to a six month conditional discharge and £85.00 costs at North Lincolnshire Magistrates` Court. Now he has a criminal record and the consequences of such a record can be dire indeed. It is a moot point whether another disposal would have been more likely before another bench. In any event how many of us with "a libertarian bent" would refuse if placed in a similar situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment