Well done to the police for arresting a likely suspect. I hope that they do have the right person and that, if he is found guilty he serves a very very long time in prison.

It does worry me that the police took this as the opportunity to take DNA samples from 2,000 innocent black men living in the area (which will be stored on police records for at least 6 years).

I know that many people believe that keeping DNA samples is reasonable, but the police deliberately targetted local black men in this operation, and I am concerned that with this situation we now have a two-tier criminal justice system. If you are a black man in the area who commits a crime you are now far more likely to be arrested than a White person who commits the same crime. And no doubt future crime statistics will tell us that most convicted criminals are black men.

I do feel that if it was a white man that committed the crime the police would have DNA tested white men.

Setting the perhaps slightly misplaced racial paranoia aside, I can't imagine you will find too much sympathy for "a black man in the area who commits a crime" in so much that he is "now far more likely to be arrested than a White person who commits the same crime".

Do all criminals deserve some sort of equal "sporting chance" of getting away with it?

More seriously, I think samples given voluntarily (as opposed to taken after an arrest, for example) have to be destroyed much sooner? Otherwise I'd better behave myself...

The guy is innocent until proven guilty.

At least let him have a trial.

Don't forget that Colin Stagg was a dead cert to have killed Rachel Nickell and was briefed against by the police for years after his acquittal.

Of course it turned out that he was totally innnocent, despite the police briefing against him for all those years after his acquittal.

Londondrz,
You could be right. The police did DNA tests on the general (male) population in the Sally Anne Bowman case. So maybe I am a little paranoid.

But don't be surprised in a few years time, when we see a report that 'most criminals' in the area are black. It is just that they are more likely to be caught for any crime (however minor) where DNA evidence is available.

Michael, the police took this as an "opportunity" to take the DNA of 2000 innocent black men. Did they not do it to aid them in catching a guilty black man?

Michael and Londronz

It was reasonable for the police "to target" local black men for their DNA, since the DNA evidence obtained from the crime scenes had pointed to the attacker being of West Indian origin, and probably from the Windward Islands. It does not seem to be the case, as you appear to imply, that the police were acting from racist motives.

I don't think he's saying that, merely that because now there are more black men on the DNA register, they'll be easier to link to future crimes than white men guilty of similar crimes who haven't given DNA, therefore the statistics will show more black men commit crime in general.

Over 30% of DNA on the register belongs to black men, I believe. It does give cause for concern.

Michael, Michael,

You risk tying yourself up in knots here. Put down the Guardian down one second.

I think many people are uncomfortable with the state's enthusiasm for enlarging its DNA collection, but in saying that this will (locally) result in the misapprehension taking hold that "most criminals are black" is to imply that many of the 2000 sample "donors" are criminals when this is surely not the case. Are you not running the risk of worse labelling / libelling in your efforts to remain PC?

Three quarters of young black men being on the database as opposed to 6% of the white population is quite shocking, though, isn't it? As is the statistic that 57% of 'innocent' DNA in London on the register is from black people. I'm not saying the police are wrong in this instance, but these statistics do really need to be remembered.

Yes, it's worrying - although you need to compare like with like, e.g. young black men with young white men, not to the whole population. Still too high though. And regardless of ethnicity, the "innocent" samples shouldn't be retained at all, IMO.

Nevermodern, where did you get the stat regarding 75% of young black men being on the DNA database?

Surely that means almost 70% of the DNA samples held by the police are not from black men?
If the victims say a black man attacked them, what would be the point of taking DNA from white/asian etc men?

Personally I would have every man give samples, I bet the crime rate would fall!

Smiler, that statistic is all over the place. And it compares with 22% of young white men. One source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...abase.html

The Telegraph, not known for its political correctness.

Mags, considering less than 5% of the UK population is black, 30% of the DNA database being black is disproportionate, isn't it?

I agree with you, Hilltop. It's the retention of the innocent samples that skews the whole thing.

Given you have to have done something to get a tug from the long arm of the law to have your DNA taken then the figures for a large city like London will have a high percentage of blacks in it as an overall percentage of the London population. Try the same scheme in Bristol and I am guessing the reverse would be true.

I am no fan of innocent DNA being (illegally) kept on the database however if targeting people because they are causing crime as apposed to the colour of their skin means I stand less chance of getting stabbed on a bus then I am all for it.

Finally, statistics can show many different things, the Evening Standard tells us tonight that more whites are stopped and searched than any other racial group, the Telegraph tells us otherwise.

There are lies, damb lies and statistics!

Depends on the victims statements and who they identify as the culprit don't you think?
Again I say what's the point of doing DNA tests on the wrong ethnic group if the victims say otherwise.

The Police knew the person wanted for this series of crime was Black.

Well, there's no surprise that whites are stopped more than any other racial group, considering that the overwhelming majority of the population are white. That's what it should be, right? It's not incompatible with the statistics I've posted. As I said, it's the 57% of innocent data being black, tied to the other statistics that are concerning.

And it may be true to say that you can make statistics work any way you like, but without them we'd have *nothing* to go on at all!

When the Telegraph is concerned in a case like this, we all should be.

Mags, I made it clear my points weren't about this case.

Sorry, to clarify, my points are about the DNA database in general, not about the police approach to this serial killer.