What is freedom?

Pick 'n' Mix civil liberties...
On the surface of it, I would like to say that I am a supporter of freedom - freedom for parents to choose the education their children receive, freedom of religion (any or none), freedom of speech...

But there begins the problem; are people able to express themselves freely? Ought people have entire freedom over what they say? Already 'freedom of speech' may be countered by the need of others to be free from opression - this brings under the magnifying glass racist humour. Indeed, it seems to have gone full circle when jokes are made at the expense of those who are non pc such as David Brent and that joke about the bread bin in 'The Office'.

Ought we to now choose our battles concerning our civil liberties? For example, I would support the inclusion of 'none of the above' boxes on ballot papers, if only to distinguish those who choose not to vote from those who cannot be bothered - but then does a no show express the same thing as a 'spoiled' ballot paper I wonder? I would oppose a national identity card scheme on grounds of its expense to the texpayer, and also for the lack of necessity; if clever counterfeiters can create false passports, just how long will it take them to whizz up counterfit id cards? Is the government still under the illusion that those involved in identity theft are shabby old men in a dismal back room with a printing press?

However, I think that I would support a national DNA database, because - although having these details on a database could be concerning due to the recent much pulicised losses at data from various national organisations - surely if it meant an improvement and rise in the successful prosecution of those involved in crime, that's a good thing?

Wright was arrested after police matched his DNA – kept on a police database after he admitted to theft in 2003 – with samples collected from sites where some of the victims had been found. Forensic analysis revealed his DNA on three of the women and fibres linking him to all five, the court was told.

After his conviction, police will reopen a number of "cold cases" as they question whether he may have killed before. Five other women have been killed or vanished in East Anglia in the past 16 years, although detectives have not linked any of the killings with Wright.

The above is taken from The Times newspaper 21st Feb 2008, it concerns the conviction of Steve Wright of the killing of 5 women in Ipswich; Mark Dixie was convicted as a result of men voluntarily taking part in a mass DNA screening in the area. Whilst an instant reaction to calls for a national DNA database was of distaste from me, I am coming round to the idea. Perhaps to begin with it too might be voluntary... though I wonder if those who opted not to be included might automatically be considered more suspicious than those who were? Might it also act as a double deterrant for potential criminals if such a database were manadatory? Or would this really make a difference to those who might commit serious crimes, in that, are these people so beyond the norms of society that such deterrants would be ineffective, such as the current punishments also appear to be.

So just how do we protect ourselves, and those who we love from risk of this nature. Sally Ann was dropped off just yards from her home, the 5 girls in Ipswich had all become involved in a cycle they struggled to get out of (as many still are)... how do we look after each other better? In the midst of a 'me driven' society, is there a place for small sacrifices of the indivdual in order for the 'greater good' to manifest?

Expense?

Fuel for the debate

Justice at last

Pros & Cons