Most citizens in the UK should expect to be linked to the proposed DNA database. This is the conclusion I have reached when considering a policy that permits indefinite retention of DNA data of those who have committed “recordable criminal offences” (as defined by the Home Secretary, see this week’s blogs).
To show that this prospect is inevitable let’s go back to some official statistics. The first one is: “Research recently carried out on men born in 1953 revealed that one in three had a conviction before they were 46 years old”. The second statistic is: “Across England and Wales, the rate of men aged 18 or over found guilty of offences in 2005 was four times higher than that of women aged 18 and over (55 men per 1,000 population compared with 12 for women)”. So, if one in three males has an offence, and this is four times the women offenders’ ratio, we can roughly assume that one in twelve women has a conviction.
Other statistics state that in 2008, the population in England and Wales was about 54.5 million. A statement to Parliament in November 2008, revealed that in March of that year there were “857,366 people on the NDNAD who had been sampled by England and Wales police forces did not have a current criminal record on PNC” (Hansard, 4 Nov 2008 : Column 358W). A simple division tells us that around 1.6% of a random population will have no criminal record but will be on the DNA database.
Because of the proposed six year retention period (instead of indefinite retention), this means we have to treat the 1.6% as an upper-limit. However, at least we have a number: Ministers for some reason can’t even do the calculation above. They repeatedly claim in Parliament that “It is not possible to say how many people on the NDNAD (the DNA database) have not been convicted” (Hansard, 15 Sep 2008, Column 2070W) so it is nice for Hawktalk to be of assistance.
Now imagine decades of indefinite retention of criminal records (which is the policy of all main political parties). For every group of 1000 individuals equally divided into 500 men and 500 women, there will 167 male criminals (one third of males) and 42 female criminals (one twelfth of women) and up to 16 “non criminals” (1.6% of 1000) with a DNA sample on the database. This means that between 209 and 225 individuals (or 21%- 22.5% of the population) will be on the DNA database.
The point being made is that if current criminal trends remain constant and the Government’s indefinite retention proposals are enacted into law, it reasonable to assume that the DNA database entries will eventually accumulate to around 21%–22.5% of the UK population.
Note that this estimate ignores the impact of the retention of DNA data relating to those who have died. One of the statutory functions of the DNA database is to identify deceased persons – so this means dead persons DNA are retained (indefinitely if they had a recordable criminal record).
Now ask yourself two questions:
(1) where does your DNA profile come from and who have you given your DNA to? Answer from your parents (2 of them) and to your children (2.3 of them!), so 50% your DNA is closely linked to about 4.3 individuals.
(2) Will the police aim to develop techniques that map the DNA data that they can legally keep (e.g. individuals committing recordable offences) onto those whose DNA they haven’t got? Obviously yes.
Now assume that such a technique has been developed. A DNA database that maps 21%-22.5% of the criminal population really has a multiplier of around 4.3 attached (i.e. 90%-97% of the population) and this is not taking into account of the indefinite retention of DNA data on dead criminals. The better the technique the more coverage is achieved (e.g. a technique that maps your DNA to DNA from grandparents or grandchildren would imply a multiplier of over 8).
This explains why I think that the DNA database, even though it is limited to data relating to recordable offence criminals, will eventually span most of the UK population. It is not a question of whether, it is a question of when; this prospect needs only the passage of time and a technical innovation. In other words, the policies of all political parties is for a universal DNA database to arise, by default, in the UK.
So I conclude that the real question with respect to DNA retention policy is whether to keep DNA data on everyone for a policing purpose. If not, let us have some sensible retention criteria? If yes, why stop at DNA? Why not to keep telecommunications data, or banking records, or anything else indefinitely for the police?
Statistics references: Men http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=4480&More=Y: Women http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1968. UK population: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6
Comments