So this is really just a post to keep the thing alive, until I have more time to devote to it. There also seems to have been a lack of specifically crime (as opposed to e.g. terrorism) stories in the press recently. Which, although probably a bit of a relief, puts a spanner in the works of any project set up specifically to comment on crime and policing.
But perhaps they have been stories and I've just not been looking hard enough.
In the mean time, this is pretty interesting. Such a low rate of detections involving DNA evidence really is quite damning. And if those detections which are achieved through the use of DNA are at the more serious end of the spectrum, why is it then necessary to keep the records of so many people on file? Because involvement in serious crime is so rare, most of these people are by definition extremely unlikely to be involved in any serious crime in the future.
The 'used in 40 per cent of detected burglaries' is also pretty meaningless unless this means that the proportion of burglaries which are being detected is going up. Otherwise DNA is just replacing more traditional, and possibly ethical, methods of detection.
In fact, Table 6.02 here suggests that sanction detection rates for burglary are very low, having risen slightly from 2002/03 to 2006/07 (from 11 to 14 per cent) but since falling back to 13 per cent. This certainly suggests that the use of DNA evidence has not lead to a major increase in burglary detection rates, and is in most cases simply replacing other methods.
But I have to say I'm not an expert in this area so it would be interesting to see what others think.......
No comments:
Post a Comment