In 2005/2006, British police were able to match around 45,000 crimes, including 422 homicides and 645 rapes, against records in a national DNA database.

They were able to do this because over the last dozen years or so, and especially since the start of this decade, the UK has been aggressively building up the database. It used to be if a DNA sample was collected from a criminal suspect that information was destroyed if the individual was acquitted at trial or the case was dropped. Not anymore. DNA samples can be taken from persons arrested for "a recordable offence and detained in a police station".

So, up to last year, the UK had DNA profiles on over 3.4 million people, more than five per cent of the country's population. That database was growing by about 30,000 a year. The obvious statement here: Britain is serious about ensuring the security of its people and in finding effective solutions to crime.

But so, too, are others. In the United States, where there are about three million offender profiles on the country's national DNA database, there are proposals to expand the system to include all persons arrested on federal crimes as opposed to those who are convicted. Several states are also expanding DNA databases and the kind of offences for which suspects are mandated to provide samples. Across Europe, countries are considering replication of the UK model, hoping to use it to help enhance domestic security.

What's the point? Simple: Prime Minister Bruce Golding is proposing nothing outrageous or diabolic in the plan unveiled on Tuesday for Jamaica's establishment of a DNA database and the non-invasive taking of samples of people charged with criminal offences.

In a sense, the Government is planning to extend what currently exists with regard to the fingerprinting and photographing of persons charged with crimes. Except, however, that under current laws, these records have to be destroyed if a person is acquitted of the crime. The Government needs to set out clearly how it intends to proceed with its DNA database, including how this project will dovetail with the current fingerprint/photograph regimes and, perhaps, a broader national project of citizen identification.

Time horizon

First, with regard to the fingerprint database, we would suggest amendments to the law introducing a time horizon, say 10 to 15 years, before the record is expunged, depending, perhaps, on the age of the accused at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed.

A central fingerprint database already exists. The Government needs to ensure that it is accessible from most, if not all, police stations and police vehicles. The potential gains from this in fighting crime are obvious.

With regard to the DNA database, the process can begin without any new legislation and/or the taking of samples from individuals. We can start with the keeping of samples from crime scenes, which can later be matched against the DNA of criminal suspects.

But perhaps the more fundamental proposal, one over which we have argued about and dithered over for decades, is a national identification card for all citizens, which would include photographs and biometric information.

There are substantial arguments of the danger of these processes impinging on civil liberties, but there is a greater liberty to security.