The DNA database
A. At the start of the 20th century, Scotland Yard’s fingerprint bureau began a quiet revolution in policing. A hundred years on, detectives have a new tool at their disposal in the form of DNA matching. In 1995 the government set up a national database recording the DNA of everyone who was convicted of a crime, hoping that it would make future cases easier to crack. Since then the England and Wales database has swollen to 5.5m entries, covering 4.8m citizens, some profiles are duplicates, or some 9% of the population. It is thought to be the biggest DNA database in the world. Despite plans announced this week to limit its growth, it looks likely to stay that way.
B. The reason for the database’s size is that since 2004 it has included not just those convicted of crimes but those who have been merely arrested. As far as police are concerned, the bigger the pool, the more chance of a match with their next crime scene. But the inclusion of people who have never committed a crime has been controversial. Up to a million of those in the database do not have a conviction. Chief constables have the discretion to remove profiles if they choose, but that seldom happens. One MP, Diane Abbott, is running surgeries to show her constituents how to appeal. Still, only a few hundred profiles are deleted each year.
C. Last December the European Court of Human Rights ruled that holding so many innocent people’s DNA records “could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society”. On November 11th the Home Office released plans to trim the number of people being included, a bit. People arrested and released will still have their DNA held, but only for six years. Under-18s in the same situation will stay on the database for three years.
D. As is now customary, the plans include tougher rules on terrorism: those cleared of terror offences could still have their DNA held indefinitely, subject to regular reviews. And the Home Office proposes to give the police the power to take DNA from people who have convictions pre-dating the database. No one knows how many are in this group, but the back catalogue could inflate the database dramatically. Chris Sims, the chief constable with responsibility for the database, expects forces to use the power “proactively”.
E. Whether the European Court will be satisfied with these tweaks remains to be seen. The opposition Conservatives say that if they win power at the approaching general election they will copy the Scottish system, in which people who are not convicted usually have their DNA removed from the database as soon as the case against them is dropped. Keeping the records of those who have done nothing wrong undermines the traditional presumption of innocence, the Tories say.
F. The government argues that shrinking the pool of people on the database means that fewer crimes will be solved. The Association of Chief Police Officers examined a set of homicide and rape cases from last year in which a DNA match had been made with a profile on the national database. In about a tenth of these cases, the match was with someone who was on the database despite not having a conviction.
G. Home Office boffins justify the six-year retention of innocents’ DNA with research showing that people who are let off after an arrest are more likely than the general public to be rearrested. Their likelihood of rearrest only drops back to average levels after six years, the number-crunchers found. Interestingly, juveniles take longer to return to a ‘normal’ risk profile than adults, leading Home Office scientists to note that there is a case for retaining their DNA for longer than that of adults, not shorter, as the government has decided.
H. High profile cases have made even liberal-minded folk think twice about limiting the size of the database. Last year Mark Dixie was jailed for a rape and murder that might never have been solved had he not had a DNA sample taken following his arrest, and subsequent release, over a pub brawl a few months later. The prospect of even a handful of killers evading justice will make it hard for any government to cut the database back much more.
The European Court of Human Rights believes that having non-convicts on the database is not .
Chris Sims thinks that the should have a proactive approach to using the database.
In Scotland, innocent people’s DNA records are removed when the case is .
The time needed for young people to return to normal risk profile is for adults.
Mark Dixie was convicted as a result if a DNA sample taken after a .
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Synonym match - the summary says 'not ...', and the passage uses a quoted judgement word
Correct Answer: necessary
Why this is correct: The passage reports the Court's exact words, saying holding innocent people's DNA could not be regarded as necessary. The summary changes the structure to 'is not ...', but the key word you must copy is necessary.
Passage Reference: C. Last December the European Court of Human Rights ruled that holding so many innocent people's DNA records 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'.
Common Mistake: Students may write justified or acceptable, which fits the idea but is not the exact word. You must copy the passage word. This is a synonym trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'could not be regarded as necessary' = Summary: 'is not [GAP]'
Tips: When the passage gives a quotation, copy the key word exactly from inside the quote.
Key Vocabulary:
- necessary = needed
- regarded = considered
Question Focus: Synonym match - 'forces' refers to police forces
Correct Answer: forces
Passage Reference: ly. Chris Sims, the chief constable with responsibility for the database, expects forces to use the power 'proactively'.
Why this is correct: Chris Sims says he expects forces to use the new power proactively. The summary paraphrases this as 'should have a proactive approach'.
Common Mistake: Students may write police, which sounds right but is not the exact word used. This is a synonym trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'expects forces to use the power proactively' = Summary: 'should have a proactive approach'
Tips: If a sentence refers to who will act, look for the exact noun used in the passage.
Key Vocabulary:
- forces = police departments
- proactively = actively
Question Focus: Synonym match - 'removed when the case is ...'
Correct Answer: dropped
Passage Reference: copy the Scottish system, in which people who are not convicted usually have their DNA removed from the database as soon as the case against them is dropped.
Why this is correct: The passage explains that in Scotland DNA is removed when the case is dropped. The summary shortens this to 'when the case is ...'.
Common Mistake: Students may write closed or finished, which changes the wording. This is a synonym trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'case against them is dropped' = Summary: 'when the case is [GAP]'
Tips: For passive structures like 'is ___', check the passage for the same verb form.
Key Vocabulary:
- dropped = stopped
- removed = taken away
Question Focus: Comparison language - juveniles vs adults
Correct Answer: longer than
Passage Reference: found. Interestingly, juveniles take longer to return to a 'normal' risk profile than adults, leading Home Office scientists to note that there is a case for retaining their DNA for longer than that of adults, not shorter, as the government has decided.
Why this is correct: The passage states that juveniles take longer to return to normal risk levels than adults. The summary turns this into a comparison, so the correct words are longer than.
Common Mistake: Students may write more time, which fits the idea but not the exact wording. This is a synonym trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'take longer to return' = Summary: 'time needed ... is [GAP] for adults'
Tips: When you see a comparison, look for 'more', 'less', 'longer', or 'shorter' in the passage.
Key Vocabulary:
- juveniles = young people
- risk profile = level of risk
Question Focus: Detail match - cause of the DNA sample
Correct Answer: pub brawl
Passage Reference: tabase. Last year Mark Dixie was jailed for a rape and murder that might never have been solved had he not had a DNA sample taken following his arrest, and subsequent release, over a pub brawl a few months later.
Why this is correct: The passage clearly says his DNA was taken after his arrest over a pub brawl. The summary asks what happened before the DNA sample was taken.
Common Mistake: Students may write arrest or rape and murder, which confuses different events. This is a context shift trap.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'arrest ... over a pub brawl' = Summary: 'DNA sample taken after a [GAP]'
Tips: Check the timeline carefully. The question asks about the earlier event, not the final crime.
Key Vocabulary:
- brawl = fight
- arrest = taken by police
General Tips:
- Summary completion questions follow passage order. Use the location of the last answer to find the next one faster.
- Always copy the exact word or words from the passage. Synonyms are not accepted.
- Check grammar clues around the gap like 'is', 'a', or comparison words to know the form you need.
- Keep the word limit in mind. Even one extra word makes the answer wrong.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation