The Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee has voted to keep the present DNA retention system which retains the DNA of those prosecuted of violent and sexual offences, but not subsequently convicted, for three years.
Scottish labour wanted DNA retention raised to six years in alignment with England and Wales. James Kelly, Scottish labour's spokesman on community safety, said: "It simply does not make sense for Scotland to have weaker laws on DNA retention than the rest of the UK."
What Mr Kelly really means is Scotland shouldn't be allowed to be different to the rest of the UK. London knows best is his mantra.
The Scottish ruling on DNA retention allows the courts to extend the three year period, on a rolling basis, in cases where someone continues to pose a danger to the public.
A more sensible proposal was made by the labour MSP Margaret Curran. She wishes victims of crime to be given the right to speak at parole hearings. Her proposal was also defeated, but the community safety minister, Fergus Ewing, said he would bring it forward in separate legislation.
I agree with Mrs Curran when she says, "The Scottish government's backing for my proposal on parole is a real step forward for victims' right".
Who says balanced government doesn't work?
Posts
6 comments:
Morning Subrosa
Scotland’s current three year DNA retention scheme is universally acclaimed as the ideal model for this system.
Why change it merely to keep in line with Englandshire?
But am I right in thinking that this decision to keep the status quo on DNA retention was only the ‘opinion’ of the Justice Committee?
Does the proposal not have to go to the Chamber for a formal vote?
Where, I hope, it will be equally rejected.
I would only give samples of my DNA by personally delivering them to a Government Minister.
Morning John, yes you're right but I couldn't find information about the committee vote (who said what) so omitted that. The report and what I heard on radio seems confident that it certainly will not get the nod, so I'm assuming all on the committee, bar labour, voted against.
I think Gordon has just lost the election RA, so there will be no need.
Oh dear me Rosa, he'll just have to take up his appointment with that scurrilous investment banker Goldman Sachs a tad earlier than he was hoping for.
How tragic RA to think that he won't make quite the same killing of our cash as Blair.
Post a Comment