Member News
By Philip Davies MP - 6th July 2010
Philip Davies MP writes for ePolitix.com ahead of his Westminster Hall debate on the use of DNA and CCTV in tackling crime.
DNA, CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) are essential crime-fighting tools for detecting crimes, bringing people to justice, deterring criminals from committing further offences and acquitting the innocent. One of our fundamental liberties is the right to walk the streets without fear of harm or harassment and as a staunch defender of freedom, I strongly believe that we would be profoundly worse off in terms of the overall liberties of the British people and the efficacy of the criminal justice system if we were to reduce the DNA database, the use CCTV cameras and ANPR.
I want to be clear from the outset that I am not in favour of the misuse of CCTV cameras by councils for snooping purposes. I am primarily concerned with utilising CCTV for identifying and prosecuting criminals. A Scotland Yard study into the effectiveness of surveillance cameras revealed that 86 - 90 murder cases over a one year period used CCTV during the investigation. Scotland Yard's head of homicide, Simon Foy stated that "CCTV plays a huge role in helping us investigate serious crime. I hope people can understand how important it is to our success in catching people who commit murder."
In fact, the recent case of the "Crossbow Cannibal" who has been arrested for the murder of three prostitutes was caught on CCTV.
CCTV is not only an invaluable tool to the police, but also in courts. The footage provides a conclusive, unbiased account, void of someone's spin or recollection. It is very different to argue with CCTV images and they often lead to changes of pleas from not guilty to guilty.
Equally, CCTV can prove that someone is being wrongly accused of committing a crime, as was the case of Gary Wood who was cleared of raping Natalie Jefferson after police studied CCTV footage of his movements that night and realised that the woman was crying rape. This saves courts time and money and also prevents witnesses from having to experience the stressful and often upsetting situation of giving evidence.
In addition, the use of ANPR led to the capture of Sharon Beshenivsky's killers in 2005 when the ANPR system tracked the getaway car, leading to the arrest of six suspects. At its launch in May, Ch Supt Geoff Dodd of West Yorkshire Police, called the ANPR system a "revolutionary tool in detecting crime."
DNA has many similar merits to CCTV, but there is an ongoing argument that the profiles of "innocents" should be removed from the database. However, a research study in 2008/09 examined 639 DNA profile matches for murder, manslaughter and rape crimes. The results showed that 11 per cent of these matches belonged to individuals who did not have a conviction at the time of the match, but whose DNA was retained on the database. Should these criminals have been left to roam the streets of the UK in the name of civil liberties?
The DNA database can also be used to acquit the innocent. The very first murder conviction using DNA evidence, in 1988 proved the innocence of a suspect, Richard Buckland.
Increasing the use of DNA profiles and CCTV, would prevent people from committing crimes, catch perpetrators of justice faster and save the lives of thousands of innocent victims. Surely that enhances all of our freedoms not diminishes them.
Article Comments
So instead of a bobby on the beat we have to make do with a camera on every lamp post and as Davies says, they help prosecute criminals and are used in evidence in up to 90% of murder cases. Have they helped to prevent any of these murders? No.
Humans are social animals and a paramilitary style of policing relying on observation and response is no match for regular "on the ground" crime prevention and law enforcement. I want to feel safe walking the street rather than knowing that if and when I'm attacked my assailant will be convicted.
Ron Slater
7th Jul 2010 at 9:19 am
Not sure about the strength of Davies' arguments. On 5th July, the Telegraph reported that the 'Number of crimes caught on CCTV falls by 70 per cent, Metropolitan Police admits' (http://bit.ly/an5Shp),
so clearly the picture is not as clear as Davies suggests. The expansion of CCTV has not matched improved results, indeed results are falling. We don't need more CCTV, we need better policing.
With regard to the DNA database, can the 11% of murder matches (that's 70 people) belonging to individuals without a conviction justify the hundreds of thousands of DNA profiles belonging to innocent people? Note, in this country people are truely innocent until proven guilty, rather than 'innocent' as Davies descirbes them.
Certainly both CCTV and a DNA database have merits, but the current scale of both these systems is unjustified and illiberal.
Balanced Argument
7th Jul 2010 at 9:16 am
That's quite a muddled and simplistic argument.
On the one hand, CCTV helps to acquit the innocent, but on the other, it's OK to keep the DNA of innocent people who've never been charged with a crime just because they might in the future....
Schneier
6th Jul 2010 at 5:32 pm
The case made by Philip Davies for CCTV, DNA retention, APNR was also used by Hitler and Stalin. They did not have the technology, but they created a vast bureaucracy instead whose horrendous deeds were only revealed after the fall of Communism. Human beings make mistakes - often - and no technology is any better than its operators.
Mr Davies' approach would inevitably hand to a government the tools for repression, and very recent history has proved for the nth time the corrupting effects power can have all too often on a human being's judgment, ethics and values.
His attempts to justify the widespread us of CCTV etc etc are the weasel words which were predicted when these tools were first introduced.
Of course the police favour them as they are absolved from accountability in the event of an unfavourable result.
These tools have created a presumption of guilt which is contrary to the basis of our law.
Mr Davies cites only two cases of convictions enabled by these tools, yet claims they 'prevent people from committing crimes', and 'save the lives of thousands of innocant victims'. There are less than 1 000 murders per annum in England and Wales which disproves both his claims.
C. Sworder
6th Jul 2010 at 5:11 pm
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Gerald Phillips
7th Jul 2010 at 1:44 pm