DNA

DNA Databases

DNA Databases

Demography of Data

agegroup * gender Crosstabulation

Count

gender

Total

male

female

agegroup

16-24

3

1

4

45-54

0

7

7

55-64

1

3

4

35-44

0

2

2

25-34

1

1

2

Total

5

14

19

In our survey most of the respondents were female and from age group 45-54.

1. Who do you think should be included on the National DNA Database?

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Strongly Agree

17

34.0

34.0

34.0

Agree

15

30.0

30.0

64.0

Neither agree nor disagree

5

10.0

10.0

74.0

Disagree

8

16.0

16.0

90.0

Strongly Disagree

5

10.0

10.0

100.0

Total

50

100.0

100.0

Most of the responses were in favor of criminals that criminals should include in DNA data base.

Do you agree that innocent peoples DNA should be kept

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Strongly Agree

13

26.0

26.0

26.0

Agree

8

16.0

16.0

42.0

Neither agree nor disagree

9

18.0

18.0

60.0

Disagree

10

20.0

20.0

80.0

Strongly Disagree

10

20.0

20.0

100.0

Total

50

100.0

100.0

Most of the people were in favor of innocent peoples DNA should be kept.

Do you agree with the objections faced the governmet regarding The National DNA Database

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid

Strongly Agree

11

22.0

22.0

22.0

Agree

12

24.0

24.0

46.0

Neither agree nor disagree

9

18.0

18.0

64.0

Disagree

9

18.0

18.0

82.0

Strongly Disagree

9

18.0

18.0

100.0

Total

50

100.0

100.0

Most of people were agree with the objections faced the government regarding The National DNA Database

Descriptive Statistics

Mean

Std. Deviation

N

DNA Database

58.78

5.441

100

Criminals

145.80

36.843

100

Innocent People

1.21

.891

100

Correlations

DNA Database

Criminals

Innocent People

Pearson Correlation

DNA Database

1.000

.691

.158

Criminals

.691

1.000

.046

Innocent People

.158

.046

1.000

Sig. (1-tailed)

DNA Database

.

.000

.059

Criminals

.000

.

.326

Innocent People

.059

.326

.

N

DNA Database

100

100

100

Criminals

100

100

100

Innocent People

100

100

100

This table gives details of the correlation between each pair of variables. We do not want strong correlations between the criterion and the predictor variables. The values here are acceptable.

Variables Entered/Removedb

Model

Variables Entered

Variables Removed

Method

1

Innocent People, Criminalsa

.

Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: DNA Database

Model Summary

Model

R

R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1

.703a

.494

.483

3.912

a. Predictors: (Constant), Innocent People, Criminals

This table is important. The Adjusted R Square value tells us that our model accounts for 70.3% of variance in the DNA Databases it can be concluded that it is very good model.

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

1

Regression

1446.898

2

723.449

47.279

.000a

Residual

1484.262

97

15.302

Total

2931.160

99

a. Predictors: (Constant), Innocent People, Criminals

b. Dependent Variable: DNA Database

This table reports an ANOVA, which assesses the overall significance of our model. As p < 0.05 our model is significant.

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t

Sig.

B

Std. Error

Beta

1

(Constant)

43.088

1.670

25.804

.000

Criminals

.101

.011

.685

9.476

.000

Innocent People

.771

.442

.126

1.746

.084

a. Dependent Variable: DNA Database

The Standardized Beta Coefficients give a measure of the contribution of each variable to the model. A large value indicates that a unit change in this predictor variable has a large effect on the criterion variable. The t and Sig (p) values give a rough indication of the impact of each predictor variable - a big absolute t value and small p value suggests that a predictor variable is having a large impact on the criterion variable.

Conclusion

A much fairer system would be to store DNA profiles for each and every one of us. This would eliminate any racial bias, negate theneed for the questionable technique of familial search, and ofcourse be a far stronger tool for law enforcement than even an arrestee database.

This universal database is tenable from a privacy perspective because of the very limited information content of DNA profiles: whereas the genome itself poses a serious privacy risk, Codis-style profiles do not.

A universal record would be a strong deterrent to first-time offenders - after all, any DNA sample left behind would be a smoking gun for the police - and would enable the police to more quickly apprehend repeat criminals. It would also help prevent wrongful convictions.

As a practical matter, universal DNA collection is fairly easy: it could be done alongside blood tests on newborns, or through painless cheek swabs as a prerequisite to obtaining a driver's license or Social Security ...