Dear Editor,
It is noted that the DNA Evidence Act has recently been passed by the House of Representatives. Since then, I have had the opportunity to read the 74-page document, which I found well put-together and easy to read, without excessive legalese.
The Act has closely followed the British version of making it possible for an "authorised person" to have a DNA sample taken from anyone suspected of, charged with, reported for, or convicted of a "relevant offence".
The interpretation section of the Act defines "relevant offence" as one that carries a punishment of imprisonment. One is mindful of the fact that this new bit of legislation is designed not only to assist with the conviction of guilty defendants, but also to assist with solving crimes that would otherwise go unsolved and, even more importantly, to exonerate innocent defendants.
So the motives behind the act are noble, and in an even not-too-perfect system the rights of the ordinary citizen stand a chance of being preserved, his privacy not violated with far-reaching consequences and of course punishment that would deter those who might seek to abuse. And that is exactly what worries me about this new piece of legislation. Our system is too far removed from any resemblance to near perfection. Our system is broken.
How can we trust our police with this piece of legislation? Has the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) not been found on several occasions engaging in all manner of nefarious deeds? We can all recount the many instances of reports of police planting evidence, and despite the punishment associated with such an offence, the offence continues to be committed.
Should we not try to fix the system or weed out this culture of the corrupting of evidence that is so critical if the integrity of DNA evidence is to be preserved? May I also inquire why it was found necessary to provide for an "officer" of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) of the rank of sergeant and above to be an authorising officer? The interpretation section of the Defence Act provides no category of officer known as a sergeant.
That aside, if the JDF operates primarily in aid to the civil power (JCF), why is it deemed necessary to have any member of that force as an authorising officer? Must all members of the JDF who are suspected of, charged with, reported for, or convicted of offences created as a result of the Defence Act now be subjected to having DNA samples taken? We could, over a period of time, have the majority of our military men on the DNA register. Is that a desirable situation? Once again, it is important that our legislators understand that there are inherent dangers in granting a tool to fight crime to a police force perceived to be corrupt, and that the inappropriate or wrongful use of this tool could in time creep into other areas in ways that impinge on personal liberties.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Can we trust our police with the DNA legislation?
-->
It is noted that the DNA Evidence Act has recently been passed by the House of Representatives. Since then, I have had the opportunity to read the 74-page document, which I found well put-together and easy to read, without excessive legalese.
The Act has closely followed the British version of making it possible for an "authorised person" to have a DNA sample taken from anyone suspected of, charged with, reported for, or convicted of a "relevant offence".
The interpretation section of the Act defines "relevant offence" as one that carries a punishment of imprisonment. One is mindful of the fact that this new bit of legislation is designed not only to assist with the conviction of guilty defendants, but also to assist with solving crimes that would otherwise go unsolved and, even more importantly, to exonerate innocent defendants.
So the motives behind the act are noble, and in an even not-too-perfect system the rights of the ordinary citizen stand a chance of being preserved, his privacy not violated with far-reaching consequences and of course punishment that would deter those who might seek to abuse. And that is exactly what worries me about this new piece of legislation. Our system is too far removed from any resemblance to near perfection. Our system is broken.
How can we trust our police with this piece of legislation? Has the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) not been found on several occasions engaging in all manner of nefarious deeds? We can all recount the many instances of reports of police planting evidence, and despite the punishment associated with such an offence, the offence continues to be committed.
Should we not try to fix the system or weed out this culture of the corrupting of evidence that is so critical if the integrity of DNA evidence is to be preserved? May I also inquire why it was found necessary to provide for an "officer" of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF) of the rank of sergeant and above to be an authorising officer? The interpretation section of the Defence Act provides no category of officer known as a sergeant.
That aside, if the JDF operates primarily in aid to the civil power (JCF), why is it deemed necessary to have any member of that force as an authorising officer? Must all members of the JDF who are suspected of, charged with, reported for, or convicted of offences created as a result of the Defence Act now be subjected to having DNA samples taken? We could, over a period of time, have the majority of our military men on the DNA register. Is that a desirable situation? Once again, it is important that our legislators understand that there are inherent dangers in granting a tool to fight crime to a police force perceived to be corrupt, and that the inappropriate or wrongful use of this tool could in time creep into other areas in ways that impinge on personal liberties.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Can we trust our police with the DNA legislation?
-->