Were you DNA sampled?
Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.
There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?
Am I missing something? Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.
Imagine it is nice warm sunny day in the park, you stop, sit on the grass for a few minutes and watch the world go by, you smoke a cigarette, and 2 of you hairs fall out on to the ground.
That night in that spot a attack takes place (use your imagination) The police comb the spot and two hairs and cigarette end is recovered from the crime scene.
Check database, and you are arrested and inprisoned, no need for a trial, as your DNA proves you where there.
OK this is very simple way of looking at it, but how long before the law would change so it was up to you to prove your innocence.
Yes if someone is convicted of a serious crime then there DNA should be kept. but not someone who had a minor car accident but was a bit riled up because of it.