From Frank Brierley
I searched your articles for amplification of the case against extended DNA
fingerprinting
(5 May, p 3,
p 9 and
p 10).
The evidence was derisory.
I was informed the police could get their filthy mitts on a marker “close to
the gene for insulin”, which could tell them whether suspect Q had a slightly
greater or lesser chance of getting diabetes. Wow!
I was told there was a 1 in 37 million chance that a DNA sample might
implicate the wrong person. If only identification parades were so reliable.
It was suggested that the deterrent effect of DNA records would be offset by
the greater care that will be taken by forensically aware offenders. Oh, come
on!
Advertisement
The odd worry that “the huge emphasis being placed on DNA evidence will tempt
police to arrest people on trumped-up minor charges just to get a DNA sample”
would be eradicated if the police had the same right to take a saliva sample as
they do now to interview anyone they please “to help them with their enquiries”.
Claygate, Surrey
