September 06, 2007 ... I never done it. D and A said so.

Evidence can always be good or ill depending on whose foot the boot is on. DNA forensics has been hailed as the greatest leap forward in criminal analysis since the discovery of fingerprints and their uniqueness to the individual, even identical twins. Unfortunately, neither fingerprinting nor DNA analysis is as accurate as one is led to believe, since both of these benchmarks towards guilt--which is why they were introduced to the criminal justice system in the first place --is particularly reliable beyond almost textbook study instances. Fingerprints most usually rely on probability of match by way of points-of-match scoring, and seldom from a verbatim and pristine print. The recent Scottish scandal, which is still not admitted to in the face of international expert opinion, is sufficient testament to the failing of fingerprinting allied to the sheer bloody mindedness and hubris of the authorities.

DNA analysis relies almost entirely on statistical probability of a match to an acceptable number of points of reference. But whenever a database is likely to exceed 100-million entries, the chances of achieving a match are ever more likely, never mind if the database, on an international basis, could contain up to 6-billion entries. Statistics have been used in court to disastrous effect. The child-killer mothers, who weren’t, being cases in point, and cases which the authorities had to be almost dragged over broken glass to have reexamined, etc., in case the legal system’s reputation was impugned.

It has been said that DNA evidence on its own would not be sufficient evidence to base a conviction on. But given enough circumstantial evidence of even the flimsiest quality, and backed up by forensic science of not any better quality, life sentences can be handed down with little concern shown by the public. The pending appeal trial for Barry George (in spite of DNA not being an issue, except for its non-existence) is evidence of that.

Even DNA can be improved on. It would be just about feasible to fit-on-demand everyone in the UK with an RFID chip, and assign them an IPv6 number. With this technology it would be possible to track everyone by cell-phone or satellite twenty-four-seven. And all the arguments for the DNA database by the authorities would still stand. ‘If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear’ is the argument put to, and the response given by Joe public, for one.

However, governments are not elected to be feared, they are elected to secure our rights, even though they are unspecified and contingent upon the caprice that is the politically expedient whim of the day. How this is achieved without infringing our rights is government’s problem, which is why our democratically elected representatives get paid the big Euros, after all, and not Joe public who is usually not a skilled lawyer or student of rights. He or she acts on impulse and concerns of the moment, goverment must not. But as it stands, what is right and wrong has been reduced to little better than a kid chucking a sausage at someone for a trivial prank. The law and any justice must be orders of magnitude above this, or we might as well forget about it and hand law and justice over to the lynch mob, and skip the pretence and expense. Or perhaps we could blow the whole system and all become criminals by putting our feet up on train seats. Better still: feet sans flip-flops.