Youth Privacy vs Community Safety

DNA records - DNA testing youth in Queensland.

Article below raises major questions about youth privacy vs community safety and crime prevention.

Both sides of the story are easy to see however if the only use of the DNA file is to solve future offences its hard to make a argument against it.

Unlike a police record which shows up on a national police check (which is now used for all sorts of things including employment, entry to some professions and in the future even things like 'rental checks' on potential housemates) there is no way that a DNA record should add a life barrier to the youth.

On the side of community safety it will quickly identify offenders and allow police resources to be used far more effectively.

On balance,,,,,, at the moment I think its ok.




Article from couriermail.com.au Sunday 10th January

SCIENTISTS have replaced detectives as the stars of TV crime shows - evidence of the dazzling array of technological tools in the modern crime-fighting arsenal of police. None has been as powerful as the use of DNA profiling in solving cases. But the revelation that hundreds of Queensland juveniles have had their DNA taken and, frequently, stored for future use raises important moral questions.

Police face a tough job. Many people will support the storage of DNA samples from young people convicted of offences as an appropriate measure to assist in the investigation of future crimes.

Queensland police report that they dealt with 33,644 juvenile offenders last year and 6541 ended up before the courts. So the 250 or so DNA-tested each year represent a small percentage, and we assume, since police refuse to discuss it, involve more serious offences.

However, the retention of DNA samples from youngsters is at odds with the spirit of other laws that prevent a criminal record as a juvenile following people into adulthood. Likewise, the juvenile justice system is run by the Department of Communities, ensuring a practical and ideological separation from the adult justice and prison system.

Since an overhaul of the state's youth detention centres, the emphasis is now firmly on education and rehabilitation, not punishment. The underlying philosophy is that young people should be allowed, and supported, to put the wrongs of their youth behind them.

Legislation covering DNA testing recognises the need to differentiate on age, banning the retention of samples taken from children under 14. Recent Australian Institute of Criminology research indicates people aged 15 to 19 are four times as likely to be arrested for a crime than those over 19.

Our view is that the law be amended so the age at which DNA samples may be retained is lifted to 15. If no further convictions have been recorded, the sample should be destroyed when they turn 19 - or two years after their release from detention or prison, whichever is later