Do burglers ever get caught?
|
Author |
Message |
SpringCat
Posts: 60
Joined: Oct 2010
|
23-11-2010 03:55 PM
thank you
They closed the case because they could not get the finger prints matched to any burglar they knew. Unfortunately when the police came to our house, was at the weekend without the forensic team. It was two days later after we had cleared the area, that someone came to our home for that.
|
|
|
|
|
brian
Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
|
23-11-2010 04:20 PM
I have always believed all the population should be DNA tested. Then hopefully the criminal would have been caught and spent 10 years in penal servitude.
|
|
|
|
|
DerbyHillTop
Posts: 120
Joined: Aug 2008
|
23-11-2010 09:50 PM
When your DNA is found at the scene of a crime that will certainly mean that you must be guilty of it. And since you are law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
BarCar
Posts: 294
Joined: Nov 2007
|
30-11-2010 03:21 PM
That's somewhat of a blanket statement which the science doesn't support.
DNA testing is not infalible and needs to be combined with traditional investigation techniques. It is not the magic bullet that many think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
nevermodern
Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
|
30-11-2010 09:59 PM
And, for those who think DNA testing the entire population is so lovely, that's before the insurance companies use the information to deny you any sort of cover because of the information they get from it, just because you have 'a propensity' for breast cancer or whatever.
And that's before you factor in the the use a future government could make of the information.
Is Nazi Germany so very far away? or Fascist Spain?
Of course, this is Britain. It could never happen here (!)
I guess that's your excuse for such frighteningly unquestioning deference to 'those who know best'.
|
|
|
|
|
brian
Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
|
01-12-2010 06:15 PM
I agree should not be solely convicted on DNA evidence but it should really assist finding probable culprits.
Could also catch fathers of single mothers to get them to share costs. It would not matter if mothers refused to give name, they should be found.
I hope I am not being controversial but surely mothers who refuse to name the father should not surely expect full benefits as denying the taxpayer to collect the farther's share.
No doubt some may find this offensive but have to find ways of cutting Welfare Bill as Mr C and Mr C have said.
|
|
|
|
|
SpringCat
Posts: 60
Joined: Oct 2010
|
07-12-2010 04:32 PM
the police was supposed to report on crimes activity in the area on 3rd December on the corner of tewksbury avenue. Has this happened or due to weather conditions, we heard no more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|