Mass DNA Testing - A Dangerous Precedent?

[Future17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12145602

BBC reporting that the Police are considering a mass DNA test of all the men in Bristol. I note that the article refers to mass DNA testing having been used previously - but I also note that this didn't lead to the capture of the killer.

On a side note, why are they only talking about testing the DNA of men in the area and not women?

[Beefster]

Are you obligated to give the sample or is it only if you're suspected of a crime? If I lived in the area, I'd be trying to avoid it, if at all possible, or insisting that the sample was destroyed immediately after my sample was cleared.

It's a slippery slope to everyone being asked for a DNA sample "just in case".

[EH6 Hibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12145602

BBC reporting that the Police are considering a mass DNA test of all the men in Bristol. I note that the article refers to mass DNA testing having been used previously - but I also note that this didn't lead to the capture of the killer.

On a side note, why are they only talking about testing the DNA of men in the area and not women?

I'm assuming the dna found either on the body or at the flat belongs to a man.

[Speedy]

My first objection would be that the costs involved in carrying this out would be huge.

I realise that people might consider cost to be irrelevant when it comes to finding a murderer but we are in a climate where people are demanding that money is spent efficiently and given that this would almost certainly be voluntary it is a bit pointless because the killers are hardly going to volunteer.

Edit:

It doesn't say anywhere that the police are considering this.

"Police have said they received new leads after questioning people at a number of locations around Bristol on Friday night, but have not yet indicated if they are considering a mass DNA screening."

[Jack]

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a DNA test? And if it is to be kept?

[sleeping giant]

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a DNA test? And if it is to be kept?

:greengrin

Superb. This thread is going to be good :thumbsup:

[Speedy]

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a DNA test? And if it is to be kept?

Because they can? Because they disagree with the additional costs that the process requires? Religious reasons?(I have no idea what religion would object to this but it wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one)

[Beefster]

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a DNA test? And if it is to be kept?

Because they're a law abiding citizen? Why would the police ask for a sample if they had no reason to suspect you of a crime?

[(((Fergus)))]

Why would a law abiding citizen object to a DNA test? And if it is to be kept?

In the past genetic information has been used as a basis for sterilisation and/or extermination. The UK government is relatively sane at the moment but what if the socialists got back in...? :wink:

[Jack]

Because they can? Because they disagree with the additional costs that the process requires? Religious reasons?(I have no idea what religion would object to this but it wouldn't surprise me if there was at least one)


Because they're a law abiding citizen? Why would the police ask for a sample if they had no reason to suspect you of a crime?


In the past genetic information has been used as a basis for sterilisation and/or extermination. The UK government is relatively sane at the moment but what if the socialists got back in...? :wink:

You know I agree with all that BUT!

Fergus most of the world moved on decades ago and the rest is catching up.

As a normal laid back member of society who would do no one any harm I feel more than relaxed about the authorities having my DNA to automatically exclude me from any further enquiries.

Indeed, with absolutely no intention of breaking any laws I’d be even more laid back, chilled beyond absolute zero, at the thought comprehensive DNA testing would whip the criminals off the streets within hours of the test coming through.

Knowing with that absolute certainty that if you did something wrong you'd be caught and punished (hopefully, although that’s another thread) must surely be the ultimate deterrent?

In such a society the law abiders could roam without fear, well at least 99.999999% of the time???

It seems so simple, I really must be missing something fundamental for the vast majority of peoples human right to lead a decent life with the assurance they are not going to be the victim of any sort of crime. [Besides that think of the savings to the police budget and that of the NHS, it would more than cover the cost of prisons.]

Just imagine a society with virtually no crime. Utopia, albeit the pub Utopia is now shut!

It’s a small price to pay.

No really, and in all seriousness that is what I believe, what is the problem? That’s the world I want to live in, I cannot believe all other decent folk wouldn’t want to live there with me. :greengrin

[Darth Hibbie]

Because they're a law abiding citizen? Why would the police ask for a sample if they had no reason to suspect you of a crime?


Police ask for samples of fingerprints and DNA all the time for elimination purposes from persons who are not suspected of committing a crime. Its more what is done with the sample when it has been discounted that is an issue (see below).



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12145602

BBC reporting that the Police are considering a mass DNA test of all the men in Bristol. I note that the article refers to mass DNA testing having been used previously - but I also note that this didn't lead to the capture of the killer.

On a side note, why are they only talking about testing the DNA of men in the area and not women?

As already mentioned they will have a sample for comparison and it will be from a male.



Are you obligated to give the sample or is it only if you're suspected of a crime? If I lived in the area, I'd be trying to avoid it, if at all possible, or insisting that the sample was destroyed immediately after my sample was cleared.

It's a slippery slope to everyone being asked for a DNA sample "just in case".

The police would require a court order to force somebody to give a sample if they refused.

The problem then arises that if many people refuse to give samples then the exercise is greatly devalued.

Every voluntary sample can only be used for that one specify comparison and must be destroyed when it is discounted.

Personally speaking I don't care if they want to take a DNA sample from me I have nothing to hide but I totally understand peoples concerns about having things like that on file.

[TrickyNicky]

You know I agree with all that BUT!

Fergus most of the world moved on decades ago and the rest is catching up.

As a normal laid back member of society who would do no one any harm I feel more than relaxed about the authorities having my DNA to automatically exclude me from any further enquiries.

Indeed, with absolutely no intention of breaking any laws I’d be even more laid back, chilled beyond absolute zero, at the thought comprehensive DNA testing would whip the criminals off the streets within hours of the test coming through.

Knowing with that absolute certainty that if you did something wrong you'd be caught and punished (hopefully, although that’s another thread) must surely be the ultimate deterrent?

In such a society the law abiders could roam without fear, well at least 99.999999% of the time???

It seems so simple, I really must be missing something fundamental for the vast majority of peoples human right to lead a decent life with the assurance they are not going to be the victim of any sort of crime. [Besides that think of the savings to the police budget and that of the NHS, it would more than cover the cost of prisons.]

Just imagine a society with virtually no crime. Utopia, albeit the pub Utopia is now shut!

It’s a small price to pay.

No really, and in all seriousness that is what I believe, what is the problem? That’s the world I want to live in, I cannot believe all other decent folk wouldn’t want to live there with me. :greengrin

I agree with this but will it open up a black market of undisposed DNA?

Oooooooh, I feel Matt Damon getting the nod for this one !!

[Beefster]

Personally speaking I don't care if they want to take a DNA sample from me I have nothing to hide but I totally understand peoples concerns about having things like that on file.

Putting aside the civil liberties issue, considering that I can't trust government agencies with my address and bank details I'd be loathe to have to trust them with my DNA. It would be open to all sorts of abuse.

[Darth Hibbie]

Putting aside the civil liberties issue, considering that I can't trust government agencies with my address and bank details I'd be loathe to have to trust them with my DNA. It would be open to all sorts of abuse.

Just out of interest cause I really don't know, how could they abuse the DNA?

[Jack]

Putting aside the civil liberties issue, considering that I can't trust government agencies with my address and bank details I'd be loathe to have to trust them with my DNA. It would be open to all sorts of abuse.

Beefster, you cant just put aside the civil liberties issue as it is so often quoted but not explained.

Just what are the issues?

As I said earlier what about the civil liberties of decent, innocent people, who are way, way, way in the majority, whose only wish is to lead a law abiding life? Are their civil liberties not an issue? Most of the civil liberty issues, I’m aware of, seem only to be concerned with protecting criminals and more to do with evading justice than seeking justice.

If some chose to live outwith the norms of a civil society, i.e. break the law, why should that society afford them the norms of living within that society anyway?

I appreciate what you say about trusting government agencies (BTW non government can be just as bad if not worse but that’s no good excuse or reason to become complacent). The leaks you hear about are very exceptional cases and the security of information is always being reviewed so that such incidents become an even rarer occurrence.

One of the arguments I often hear is about, or used to hear about in my Union days, a ‘change of political system’ as though it happens every couple of years. It doesn’t. We all know the chances of this happening are remote in the extreme but should it happen a DNA database would be the least of our problems. The information so many fret ‘would fall into the wrong hands’ is already held by other agencies, like the NHS and if this new order came along patient confidentiality, or any other confidentiality clause or sanity clause, is unlikely to stand in the way anyway!

[Beefster]

Beefster, you cant just put aside the civil liberties issue as it is so often quoted but not explained.

Just what are the issues?

As I said earlier what about the civil liberties of decent, innocent people, who are way, way, way in the majority, whose only wish is to lead a law abiding life? Are their civil liberties not an issue? Most of the civil liberty issues, I’m aware of, seem only to be concerned with protecting criminals and more to do with evading justice than seeking justice.

If some chose to live outwith the norms of a civil society, i.e. break the law, why should that society afford them the norms of living within that society anyway?

I appreciate what you say about trusting government agencies (BTW non government can be just as bad if not worse but that’s no good excuse or reason to become complacent). The leaks you hear about are very exceptional cases and the security of information is always being reviewed so that such incidents become an even rarer occurrence.

One of the arguments I often hear is about, or used to hear about in my Union days, a ‘change of political system’ as though it happens every couple of years. It doesn’t. We all know the chances of this happening are remote in the extreme but should it happen a DNA database would be the least of our problems. The information so many fret ‘would fall into the wrong hands’ is already held by other agencies, like the NHS and if this new order came along patient confidentiality, or any other confidentiality clause or sanity clause, is unlikely to stand in the way anyway!

Taking a sample of tissue is akin to taking blood against your will. It's also a violation of the right to be considered innocent until proven.

In most cases, I have a right to decide who I give my information to (for instance, I don't have to give my details to a policeman unless he suspects me of a crime).

I'm not trying to protect criminals and have no problem with criminals having to give samples. However, a DNA database won't protect anyone. It may lead to certain crimes having higher conviction rates but that's not the same thing.

[heretoday]

My objection to mass DNA testing is not on grounds of paranoia or even Civil Liberties principles. On the surface of it it seems like a sensible tool to have in the fight against crime.

No, it's that I don't trust the authorities not to cock things up and leave the whole database in the back of a taxi cab or something!

[easty]

My objection is that my DNA is for me, and for the future Mrs Easty, and no-one else thank you very much. Hands off my DNA :tsk tsk:

[Jack]

Taking a sample of tissue is akin to taking blood against your will. It's also a violation of the right to be considered innocent until proven.

In most cases, I have a right to decide who I give my information to (for instance, I don't have to give my details to a policeman unless he suspects me of a crime).

I'm not trying to protect criminals and have no problem with criminals having to give samples. However, a DNA database won't protect anyone. It may lead to certain crimes having higher conviction rates but that's not the same thing.

Cant disagree with that but just because that’s how the law stands just now, pretty fundamentally too, doesn’t mean to say that is how it always should be.

What I might suggest is the law, as it stands just now, means we are all suspects until someone is proven guilty.

As Bristol is currently demonstrating that means huge figures in terms of police hours and money is being ‘wasted’ to track down a murderer – who is still at large after something like 4 weeks. How many people would still be alive today if DNA had identified the Yorkshire Ripper after his first brutal murder? Don’t just think of the women, think of all their families and friends who have been affected. How many people have had our lives affected by crime but there has been no conviction? Probably all of us.

TBH, and without the expletives, I’m sick of living in a society where criminals seem to have more rights than decent folk; where the law protects criminals at the expense of decent folk; where decent folk live in fear while criminals swagger about the place.

The vast majority of folk are decent folk and deserve a better deal. I would gladly give up a slaver or a test-tube of blood to redress the balance between good and evil. Its only criminals that have anything to lose as far as I’m concerned and F them.


My objection to mass DNA testing is not on grounds of paranoia or even Civil Liberties principles. On the surface of it it seems like a sensible tool to have in the fight against crime.

No, it's that I don't trust the authorities not to cock things up and leave the whole database in the back of a taxi cab or something!



Despite the fact it is hugely unlikely the database could ever be small enough that it could be left in the back of a taxi, I understand the serious part of where you're coming from. It was a well considered argument as to why people WILL die unnecessarily, WILL be murdered unnecessarily; someone’s mother, sister, daughter, wife WILL be raped unnecessarily; we WILL all unnecessarily be the victim of crime of some sort or another, probably in the next 18 months.

Jeez, you nearly had me there but I’m still in favour of the database :greengrin.

I wouldn't want it to be my wife, mother, sister, daughter or friend, nor yours either.

[SlickShoes]

Despite the fact it is hugely unlikely the database could ever be small enough that it could be left in the back of a taxi, I understand the serious part of where you're coming from. It was a well considered argument as to why people WILL die unnecessarily, WILL be murdered unnecessarily; someone’s mother, sister, daughter, wife WILL be raped unnecessarily; we WILL all unnecessarily be the victim of crime of some sort or another, probably in the next 18 months.

Jeez, you nearly had me there but I’m still in favour of the database :greengrin.

I wouldn't want it to be my wife, mother, sister, daughter or friend, nor yours either.

A database thats size could easily fit on any modern Hard Disk Drive, internal or portable and could easily be left in the back of a taxi or quickly traded in person or online without too much trouble.

Personally I wouldnt be up for giving my DNA for anything to the government, i can understand why people would so its just personal preference.

[Speedy]

Cant disagree with that but just because that’s how the law stands just now, pretty fundamentally too, doesn’t mean to say that is how it always should be.

What I might suggest is the law, as it stands just now, means we are all suspects until someone is proven guilty.

As Bristol is currently demonstrating that means huge figures in terms of police hours and money is being ‘wasted’ to track down a murderer – who is still at large after something like 4 weeks. How many people would still be alive today if DNA had identified the Yorkshire Ripper after his first brutal murder? Don’t just think of the women, think of all their families and friends who have been affected. How many people have had our lives affected by crime but there has been no conviction? Probably all of us.

TBH, and without the expletives, I’m sick of living in a society where criminals seem to have more rights than decent folk; where the law protects criminals at the expense of decent folk; where decent folk live in fear while criminals swagger about the place.

The vast majority of folk are decent folk and deserve a better deal. I would gladly give up a slaver or a test-tube of blood to redress the balance between good and evil. Its only criminals that have anything to lose as far as I’m concerned and F them.




Despite the fact it is hugely unlikely the database could ever be small enough that it could be left in the back of a taxi, I understand the serious part of where you're coming from. It was a well considered argument as to why people WILL die unnecessarily, WILL be murdered unnecessarily; someone’s mother, sister, daughter, wife WILL be raped unnecessarily; we WILL all unnecessarily be the victim of crime of some sort or another, probably in the next 18 months.

Jeez, you nearly had me there but I’m still in favour of the database :greengrin.

I wouldn't want it to be my wife, mother, sister, daughter or friend, nor yours either.

It's easy to say that but that would require the Yorkshire ripper(or the offender in any other crime) to volunteer their DNA. Why would they do that when they know it will incriminate them?


I don't think it's unlikely at all. As a digital file it could easily be carried around. For £80 you can get a hard drive, the size of a book, that can store 2TBs of data.

[--------]

My objection to mass DNA testing is not on grounds of paranoia or even Civil Liberties principles. On the surface of it it seems like a sensible tool to have in the fight against crime.

No, it's that I don't trust the authorities not to cock things up and leave the whole database in the back of a taxi cab or something!


I'd tend to agree with you.

It's not the fact that the authorities would have my DNA. It's the fact that someone would have to be in charge of the database, and that someone might quite easily make a mistake, spell my name wrong, confuse me with a known criminal, whatever.

But then, the passport authorities never make mistakes... Nor do the DVLA bods... Or the banks... Or HMRC...

It's not about corruption; it's about laziness, confusion, and stupidity, actually.

[steakbake]

A database thats size could easily fit on any modern Hard Disk Drive, internal or portable and could easily be left in the back of a taxi or quickly traded in person or online without too much trouble.

Personally I wouldnt be up for giving my DNA for anything to the government, i can understand why people would so its just personal preference.

Didn't some bod from the DWP lose 7million NI numbers which were apparently held on a memory stick?

I just object to the idea of mass DNA testing because it is a stance in which everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[Rick Rude]

Maybe slightly away from the way this thread has developed but can anyone tell me why this woman is so important that it justifies these extreme measures when so many other murdered people don't? :confused:

[EH6 Hibby]

Maybe slightly away from the way this thread has developed but can anyone tell me why this woman is so important that it justifies these extreme measures when so many other murdered people don't? :confused:

I wondered about that too, the only thing I can think of is that there was a nationwide appeal for her to be found which obviously brought her to everyone's attention, so I think the police feel they have to be seen to be doing something. I have to wonder if they would be doing the same had her body been found the day after she disappeared and there had been no nationwide appeal.

[Beefster]

Maybe slightly away from the way this thread has developed but can anyone tell me why this woman is so important that it justifies these extreme measures when so many other murdered people don't? :confused:

Because she's a young, attractive female, there's an element of mystery to her murder, the national press have taken a keen interest and the police seem to be struggling under the pressure whilst making little or no progress (and seemingly already making one balls-up with the arrest of the landlord).

[RyeSloan]

Because she's a young, attractive female, there's an element of mystery to her murder, the national press have taken a keen interest and the police seem to be struggling under the pressure whilst making little or no progress (and seemingly already making one balls-up with the arrest of the landlord).

That still doesn't seem to justify 'special measures' I would say...especially as it is only a very short time since her death.

You are right though the Police do seem to be a bit desperate, no surprise though as there seems to be a growing trend to criticise them no matter what if they haven't solved the problem within 48 hours. While I'm no lover of the police generally this growing trend is not something I'm particularily comfortable with.

[Beefster]

That still doesn't seem to justify 'special measures' I would say...especially as it is only a very short time since her death.

You are right though the Police do seem to be a bit desperate, no surprise though as there seems to be a growing trend to criticise them no matter what if they haven't solved the problem within 48 hours. While I'm no lover of the police generally this growing trend is not something I'm particularily comfortable with.

I agree with you about the DNA stuff.

One of the perils of using the press in the first place, I'm afraid. When you're asking the likes of the Mirror, Sun, Daily Mail and Express to help you publicise things then it's only a matter of time before they start creating their own stories when the investigation doesn't produce news for a while. The tabloid press are trash, to put it mildly.

[lapsedhibee]

Despite the fact it is hugely unlikely the database could ever be small enough that it could be left in the back of a taxi

Along with a separate forum for threads about the yams, and a separate forum for trolls and WUMs, might we also have a separate forum for people posting in the 1980s? :dunno: :wink:

[Bishop Hibee]

I'd take it all the way to the European courts if necessary to stop the authorities getting their hands on my DNA. Innocent until proven guilty :agree:

[Greentinted]

What I might suggest is the law, as it stands just now, means we are all suspects until someone is proven guilty.

As Bristol is currently demonstrating that means huge figures in terms of police hours and money is being ‘wasted’ to track down a murderer – who is still at large after something like 4 weeks. How many people would still be alive today if DNA had identified the Yorkshire Ripper after his first brutal murder? Don’t just think of the women, think of all their families and friends who have been affected. How many people have had our lives affected by crime but there has been no conviction? Probably all of us.

TBH, and without the expletives, I’m sick of living in a society where criminals seem to have more rights than decent folk; where the law protects criminals at the expense of decent folk; where decent folk live in fear while criminals swagger about the place.

Its a difficult one all round but as has been stated, my DNA is mine and until such a time as I am suspected of a major crime or unless I invite others to sample of it, then it remains mine - one of the very few things I can call my own.

As for the Ripper enquiry, if the investigating agencies had got their act together in the first place (Oldfield, Hoban et-al) there would have been little scope for Sutcliffe's reign of terror to proliferate (borne out in the Byford report - a report which remains censored). In fact the Yorkshire Ripper Case is emblematic of institutional ineptitude and again, to reiterate what has been said, it would be almost impossible to avoid some kind of administrative cock-up. So until the system becomes infallible then messing around with peoples immutable details should not be considered.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Yep, it is a difficult one but I personally do not have a huge problem with it. Yea I guess there would be cock ups but what damage can someone knowing your DNA do to you? I don't know and I cannot think of anything the knowledge could be used for????

[Future17]

Yep, it is a difficult one but I personally do not have a huge problem with it. Yea I guess there would be cock ups but what damage can someone knowing your DNA do to you? I don't know and I cannot think of anything the knowledge could be used for????

Aside from the potential for deliberate misuse and just dealing with potential mistakes, how about being charged with a crime you didn't commit?

http://www.shirleymckie.com/facts.htm

[Lucius Apuleius]

Aside from the potential for deliberate misuse and just dealing with potential mistakes, how about being charged with a crime you didn't commit?

http://www.shirleymckie.com/facts.htm

Don't see that as a problem to be honest as I am pretty sure alibis etc would prove my innocence.

[Greentinted]

Yep, it is a difficult one but I personally do not have a huge problem with it. Yea I guess there would be cock ups but what damage can someone knowing your DNA do to you? I don't know and I cannot think of anything the knowledge could be used for????

Just a wee hypothesis bearing in mind the nature of human error and fallibility.
Say I go out later tonight armed with a bludgeon of sorts and commit a heinous unprovoked assault. Now, not being the shiniest spoon in the cutlery drawer, I neglect to wear a pair of gloves (bugger me, says I, I knew I forgot something) but my propensity for violent mischief prevails and I set about someone, beating them to within the proverbial inch of their life. In the aftermath, I discard said weapon and it is recovered by the investigating agencies and tested for DNA. Say the guy working the DNA machine has a hangover, is coming down with flu or is perhaps on a promise, and in his negligent haste transposes my DNA for yours. Bearing in mind, DNA, is apparently the final word in distinguishing personages involved at a crime-scene, you would be royally goosed; do not collect £200 and all your alibis in the world ain't gonna help one jot.
Meanwhile I'm offski, have a nice day!

[Jack]

Just a wee hypothesis bearing in mind the nature of human error and fallibility.
Say I go out later tonight armed with a bludgeon of sorts and commit a heinous unprovoked assault. Now, not being the shiniest spoon in the cutlery drawer, I neglect to wear a pair of gloves (bugger me, says I, I knew I forgot something) but my propensity for violent mischief prevails and I set about someone, beating them to within the proverbial inch of their life. In the aftermath, I discard said weapon and it is recovered by the investigating agencies and tested for DNA. Say the guy working the DNA machine has a hangover, is coming down with flu or is perhaps on a promise, and in his negligent haste transposes my DNA for yours. Bearing in mind, DNA, is apparently the final word in distinguishing personages involved at a crime-scene, you would be royally goosed; do not collect £200 and all your alibis in the world ain't gonna help one jot.
Meanwhile I'm offski, have a nice day!

Hopefully the guys who check and then double check the sample will not be similarly distracted.

I would also assume the accused would be given a copy of the sample for their own testing – as I hear folk are already for the likes of drunk driving.

[Future17]

Hopefully the guys who check and then double check the sample will not be similarly distracted.

I would also assume the accused would be given a copy of the sample for their own testing – as I hear folk are already for the likes of drunk driving.

DNA for drunk-driving cases? Damn these hybrid cars!! :greengrin

[Greentinted]

Hopefully the guys who check and then double check the sample will not be similarly distracted.

I would also assume the accused would be given a copy of the sample for their own testing – as I hear folk are already for the likes of drunk driving.

Fair dos, the more safeguards the better but I still maintain the element of human error and indeed the odd hidden agenda here and there gives cause for concern. If we're basing major personal sacrifices (i.e the relinquishising of the blueprint of our unique physical selves) on hopes and assumptions, count me out. Too much Orwellian insidiousness invading our lives as it is.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Just a wee hypothesis bearing in mind the nature of human error and fallibility.
Say I go out later tonight armed with a bludgeon of sorts and commit a heinous unprovoked assault. Now, not being the shiniest spoon in the cutlery drawer, I neglect to wear a pair of gloves (bugger me, says I, I knew I forgot something) but my propensity for violent mischief prevails and I set about someone, beating them to within the proverbial inch of their life. In the aftermath, I discard said weapon and it is recovered by the investigating agencies and tested for DNA. Say the guy working the DNA machine has a hangover, is coming down with flu or is perhaps on a promise, and in his negligent haste transposes my DNA for yours. Bearing in mind, DNA, is apparently the final word in distinguishing personages involved at a crime-scene, you would be royally goosed; do not collect £200 and all your alibis in the world ain't gonna help one jot.
Meanwhile I'm offski, have a nice day!


Good question. But I am in Nigeria so naewhere near it :-)

[Greentinted]

Good question. But I am in Nigeria so naewhere near it :-)

Baws! I'll just stay in then.:greengrin

[bawheid]

Don't know enough about all of this.

However, is it not possible that you could be in close contact with someone who then immediately goes and commits a crime; leaving your DNA (and theirs) at the scene?

[Speedy]

Don't know enough about all of this.

However, is it not possible that you could be in close contact with someone who then immediately goes and commits a crime; leaving your DNA (and theirs) at the scene?

Aye, e.g. a hair could transfer to their clothing and then fall off in a crime scene.

Or maybe I've been watching too much CSI?

[IWasThere2016]

Because they're a law abiding citizen? Why would the police ask for a sample if they had no reason to suspect you of a crime?

Today maybe - but tomorrow???

I'd be first in the queue personally ..