|
|
Post by thelma on Apr 17, 2008 4:37:28 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24173094The above article states that anyone arrested for a Federal Crime or even detained, will now have their DNA taken and put into the fast growing DNA Bank held and controlled by the Federal Government. This is a highly debatable issue, IMO. I can see both the Pros and Cons of this decision. The biggest Pro will be more and more criminals will be "caught" with no room for error once a match is made with the DNA of the criminal. The biggest Con will be the lack of privacy we are all guaranteed under our Constitution. My personal opinion is - don't commit any Federal Crime and your DNA will never be taken!!!!! I do know that New York State takes criminals DNA for anyone convicted of even a Misdeameor that also goes into a Data Bank. More and more reason for everyone NOT to commit any crimes! If I'm not mistaken, the Green River Killer of approximately 18 females ("Yates") was never arrested and his DNA was NOT in any DNA Data Bank. It took old fashion police work and his confession to convict him of these gruesome crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 7:58:25 GMT -5
Picture yourself standing around with a group of your neighbors discussing crimes that have recently taken place in your small town of Podunk. One fellow in the crowd, of whom you've always been a little leary, suggests putting cameras on the light poles to monitor suspicious activities on the streets. You know the cameras will also see some indoor activities. He also thinks it might be a good idea for each of you to contribute a DNA sample for future prosectutions. What would be your reaction? How ... and especially WHY .. would your reaction differ from how you feel when the government suggests doing this?
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Apr 17, 2008 9:57:14 GMT -5
First of all, Dave, the Goverment is only targeting criminals - not law abiding citizens. All they want is your DNA to help solve crimes; especially those that have been or will be closed as a "Cold Case" because the police have ran out of leads.
The cameras on the light pole can be adjusted to just view the street - not inside an individual's home.
There is a BIG difference between your example and what the Feds want to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 12:15:31 GMT -5
There is a BIG difference between your example and what the Feds want to do. But maybe not for long. I don't trust 'em. So I guess your answer to my question is that you would not mind your neighbors collecting such data. Or you would, but you have a reason why you feel comfortable with the government doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by WestmoGuy on Apr 17, 2008 12:37:27 GMT -5
I say everyone should be in the DNA database.
Go ahead, flame away ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 12:40:26 GMT -5
I say everyone should be in the DNA database. Go ahead, flame away ;D We probably are, but for the sake of argument, why should I be in anyone's database? |
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Apr 17, 2008 13:41:43 GMT -5
Again - If government officials want to take your DNA AFTER you have been convicted of a crime - I'm in 100% agreement with them doing so. Maybe, then, some of these "Cold Cases" can be solved!
For the average law abiding citizen - you have nothing to worry about. Anything we can do to make Law Enforcement job a little bit easier and safer, I'm all for doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 17, 2008 16:44:24 GMT -5
So far the publicity that I have seen and read about has been cold cases solved that freed innocent individuals who were convicted on circumstantial evidence, and have been "wrongfully" imprisoned for years. I say "wrongfully" convicted, but the justice system prevailed with what evidence and information and technology was available at the the time.
I see DNA saving lives, convicting more guilty people, solving cold cases, and helping to identify victims of incidents that either leave them deceased or unable to talk and be identified.
It is coming, and there are pros and cons to the idea, but other than the argument that government is getting too far into our personal lives, I have to be pro on this particular issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Apr 17, 2008 16:51:58 GMT -5
I could have sworn that I just read something saying that a Government study just said that this shouldn't be done as it would actually decrease the %age of correct results.
|
|
|
|
Post by thelma on Apr 17, 2008 17:19:42 GMT -5
Ryan - I don't understand why it would decrease the percentage of correct results as NO ONE has the same DNA - except identical twins.
There have been 212 prisoners released from prison based on DNA evidence that proved they were completely innocent of the crime they were convicted for. Only 12 out of these 212 reoffended after they had been released. And this only started in 2004!!!!!!
who knows, maybe this will advance the medical studies into what gene causes cancer, diabetes, and other illness that many of us are born with and a cure or vacine will be discovered.
All I know is if I was convicted of a Federal crime and knew I was conpletely innocent, I would be begging for them to take my DNA!
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 20:12:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 20:19:30 GMT -5
Ryan, we should check with Swimmy, but I think there is a worry that juries won't convict without DNA and instead will allow criminals to go free who would have been convicted, rightfully, on circumstantial evidence before the advent of new technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 20:38:23 GMT -5
Thelma, it's the old slippery slope argument. The most controversial topic in DNA Databanks among law enforcement people is, I've read, WHO should go in the data base. That will soon devolve to everyone and the policitians will use your points to argue for it. When DNA technology can be used to predict who will commit crimes, get cancer, join forums, the politicians will show that we could really save a lot of tax dollars by using that information to form a society that will have castes and be similar to pre-colonial India. Just hope you don't wind up an Untouchable whose rights are less than a Brahma cow.  |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 17, 2008 21:27:33 GMT -5
Here's a must-read. These guys are arguing FOR a population-wide DNA Database. They review various legal arguments and theories. www.hks.harvard.edu/dnabook/Kaye_and_Smith_2.docDNA Databases for Law Enforcement: The Coverage Question and the Case for a Population-Wide Database D.H. Kaye & Michael Smith An excerpt (and their bottom line): [This first sentence is not a typo!] "Nearly 300 million DNA samples sit in tissue repositories in the United States. Police agencies under public and political pressure to remove a serial killer from the streets will, in time, seek access to these samples, not just for specific investigations, but also to include profiles of them in law enforcement databanks. Here too, a respectable argument can be made that, for better or worse, the Constitution poses no serious barrier. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 440 (1976), the Supreme Court held that when a person voluntarily relinquishes checks and deposit slips to a bank, subpoenas requiring the bank to produce these materials do not intrude “into any area in which [the defendant] had a protected Fourth Amendment interest.” Are medical records any different? Lower courts have reached conflicting results, but Miller is not easily distinguished. Under existing doctrine, the Fourth Amendment is quite porous to determined efforts by police to acquire DNA from specific individuals and from large classes of individuals. With our identifying DNA so accessible to law enforcement, in law and in fact, it is prudent to ask whether privacy interests would be better protected by deliberate, careful creation of a population-wide database of DNA identification profiles, unrelated to medical or other records of our affairs, specifically and exclusively for the state’s investigation of crime, natural disasters, and missing person cases." |
|
