Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/13/french-school-dna-testing-rapist-la-rochelle

I saw this story in the news over the weekend. For those of you who don’t want to read the article 6 months ago a 16 year old pupil was raped in a dark alley on the premises. She said she couldn’t identify the attacker but traces of DNA where left on her clothing. DNA tests have already eliminated her family and friends so the decision has been made to DNA test every single male pupil, teacher and member of staff to find the attacker. A total of 527 people. Legally any of them have the right to refuse to submit a sample however authorities say that anyone who refuses to take part will be considered a suspect. They have also said the all DNA samples that are shown to be unconnected to the case will be destroyed.

Now I understand the need to catch a rapist, but I’m very uneasy about this sort of blanket testing. It seems to be a very basic removal of the presumption of innocence. I would have thought some sort of probable cause would have to be established before justifying taking a DNA sample, simply being one of 500 men who attend the same school shouldn’t be enough to justify this.

Not to mention the rather sister overtones of the statement that refusal to cooperate will to considered suspicions. The desire to protect your privacy if perfectly natural and not something most people would surrender on a whim. Blackmailing people into cooperation in this way has overtones of ‘if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear’.

I’d probably be less suspicious of this if there was even some indication of trying to narrow down the list of suspects before taking the DNA of those who remain, but there doesn’t even seem to have been that. It’s a crude sledgehammer of a solution that seems to be being used in lieu of good old fashioned police work.

Claims the DNA will be destroyed afterwards worth taking with a pinch of salt. Here in the UK there was a scandal a few years ago where it was discovered the authorities had kept the DNA of tens of thousands of innocent people that had been given for similar reason.

So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?

 LuciusAR wrote:
So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?

Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?

In a heartbeat.


If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.

Yep same here.

Not only that, but there have been several instances here in the UK where the police have blanket tested sections of communities or areas and subsequently discovered perpetrators of other crimes who had hitherto remained unknown thus enabling them to solve legacy crimes where recovered DNA was kept on file.

Blanket DNA requests are not that unusual, and is probably called for, however, at least in the UK, refusal to give a sample would not automatically deem you a suspect, merely not remove you from suspicion. This gives the impression that DNA tests are perfect and you just keep testing until you find a match, then bingo! Off to prison!

Also, 500 dose seem like rather a large group. Unless they are out of leads it dose seem they are being lazy.

Yeah, same as the rest. Completely fine with this.

 insaniak wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?

Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?

In a heartbeat.


If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.

Well, if they can't be trusted to destroy it as per the law they probably can't be trusted not to miss use it in other ways. It is also a basic breach of trust between person and state.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Well, if they can't be trusted to destroy it as per the law they probably can't be trusted not to miss use it in other ways.

Yes, that was the question, though - what 'other ways'?

It is also a basic breach of trust between person and state.

Wouldn't that require there to actually be trust there to begin with...?

It seems that this isn't the case, if people aren't willing to accept the statement that the samples will be destroyed at face value.

I would be happy to give my DNA sample for such a case. Who wants a rapist going around their town attacking 16-year olds?

There was a similar case in the UK a few years back, when all men in the neighbourhood were requested to give a sample. The actual rapist was caught because he tried to persuade a friend to give a sample for him.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be happy to give my DNA sample for such a case. Who wants a rapist going around their town attacking 16-year olds?

Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects. If I’d been witnessed near the actual scene of the alleged crime close to the time it happened I could understand and would probably cooperate, but I don’t think I could submit to this sort of blanket sampling just because I was in the same group of buildings.

Furthermore I dislike the implication that to object to this sort of thing marks you out as some sort of apologist for rapists. That’s just emotional blackmail.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects.

But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime. Submitting the the DNA test isn't casting them as suspects... it's removing themselves from the suspect list.

This is the UK case I was thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork

5,000 local men were voluntarily screened. The rapist/murderer paid a colleague £200 to give a sample for him, but that guy was overheard boasting about it and a woman reported it to the police.

It seems to me that rather than being considered a suspect, the people who are screened are merely being eliminated from the enquiry, similar to if you took a statement from them, to establish their alibi, and then checked all the alibis.

By screening everyone, no-one is singled out as a specific suspect. To refuse to be screened is obviously suspicious because the DNA is such a direct piece of physical evidence in the case.

I would refuse. This dragnet operation and the threats used to enable it are an abuse of police power, and should be opposed.

 insaniak wrote:
But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime.

No, they aren't. If they think that they have grounds to perform an invasive search against a small town's worth of people, they can get a damn warrant. With any luck, the judge will treat their bs with the contempt it deserves.

 insaniak wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Well no one obviously, but I don’t see how that justifies such heavy handed tactics and the blanket casting of 500 males as suspects.

But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime. Submitting the the DNA test isn't casting them as suspects... it's removing themselves from the suspect list.

Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.

There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.

I'd happily do this, I wouldn't mind if they kept my DNA on file too. I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.

 AlexHolker wrote:
I would refuse. This dragnet operation and the threats used to enable it are an abuse of police power, and should be opposed.

 insaniak wrote:
But that's just it - those 500 men are already suspects, due to their proximity to the crime.

No, they aren't. If they think that they have grounds to perform an invasive search against a small town's worth of people, they can get a damn warrant. With any luck, the judge will treat their bs with the contempt it deserves.

The police are gathering evidence. The DNA sample is voluntary.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.

There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.

Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.

 insaniak wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.

There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.

Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.

Right, and then when they decide to start checking homes in a five mile radius for a thief they can voluntarily let everyone sift through their belongings, their computer, and if you don't your simply a suspect with something to hide.

While this might be an example of a slippery slope argument, it's pretty close to what's happening here.

I think the slope is a little too slippery for my tastes, but I am not familiar enough with French ideas about what constitutes a lawful search to really object.

In the US, of course, the fourth and maybe fifth amendment would preclude this. I can't imagine a search warrant so broad being issued.

 insaniak wrote:
Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.

It seems a poor practice to surrender freedom for exigency. But again, my American bias is perhaps showing.

 insaniak wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
So if you where at this school or had a son at this school would you be happy with this?

Giving a harmless DNA sample in order to help catch a rapist?

In a heartbeat.


If they don't actually destroy it as they say they will... how does that actually affect me? They have my DNA on file... might have to give up my high-rolling life of crime.

In France? I could care less. In the USA better bring a warrant for specific individuals.

If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.

Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.

What I am hearing is "No I don't want to help catch a rapist".

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:
Nope, that stretches the meaning of the word suspect to near breaking point. There have to be reasonable grounds to suspect someone to classify them as a suspect otherwise the word loses all meaning.

There was a burglary in my local area a few weeks ago. I had a card through my door from the police about it advising me to take extra care to secure my flat. By the logic you are employing I am a classifiable as a suspect in that burglary due to my proximity to the crime.

Call it what you want, the simple fact remains that by willingly agreeing to the DNA test, you give them one less person they potentially need to look at.

Right, and then when they decide to start checking homes in a five mile radius for a thief they can voluntarily let everyone sift through their belongings, their computer, and if you don't your simply a suspect with something to hide.

While this might be an example of a slippery slope argument, it's pretty close to what's happening here.

Agreed. I am sure a crime occurred in the USA somewhere last night. We'd better DNA test the North American continent. What could go wrong?

 Imperator_Class wrote:
What I am hearing is "No I don't want to help catch a rapist".

Then you are doing a poor job reading.

 Price wrote:
I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.

You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.

Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.

Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.

Well, with a substantially narrower field, that might be adequate probable cause. Maybe. You have 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people in that situation, I could see a warrant for that.

The real ironic thing will be if they do 500 DNA tests and don't get any matches because it was some wandering stranger at an opportune moment. Opportune isn't the best word to use there but I can't think of a better one.

 Imperator_Class wrote:
What I am hearing is "No I don't want to help catch a rapist".

What I am hearing is "I'm a subject not a citizen."

Freedom's not just another word for nothing left to lose.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If you refer to the article, it appears that the time of the attack is known. The men who were on the premises at that time are known, unless someone sneaked in secretly.

Therefore everyone is at least a potential suspect, and needs to be eliminated from the enquiry in some way.

Horse gak. You need probable cause buddy, and that aint it.

You don't need probably cause to ask people to voluntarily cooperate with a search.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Price wrote:
I would take almost any chance to help catch someone like that and eliminating me from the list, narrowing it down by even one person brings the true culprit one more step towards being found out and facing justice.

You're not helping. At best, you're enabling a bunch of morons who want to waste 499 DNA tests worth of effort on a wild goose chase. At worst, they're wasting 500. Even in the Pitchfork case, the DNA test didn't solve the crime, a crook who couldn't keep his mouth shut did.

Does that mean DNA testing should not be used for any criminal investigations?

Considering you can legally refuse the test, I don't really see a problem.

I can legally refuse to answer the police's questions about my whereabouts when my neighbor was murdered. The police aren't doing anything wrong by asking me to volunteer that information. I just have to live with the consequences of being a suspect.

People who don't work in or in conjuncture with the justice system (though I speak from an American perspective) seem to think that anytime a government asks you to do something, even if you can legally refuse, that they are impeding on your rights.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, with a substantially narrower field, that might be adequate probable cause. Maybe. You have 3 or 4 or maybe even 10 people in that situation, I could see a warrant for that.

The real ironic thing will be if they do 500 DNA tests and don't get any matches because it was some wandering stranger at an opportune moment. Opportune isn't the best word to use there but I can't think of a better one.

If that occurs, then clearly you just need to test all of France. I'm surprised they're not just starting with that.