Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my experience the more certain I have been that I did not commit an offence the more concerned I have been when stopped for a traffic violation. Many small town police practice "trolling for drunks" by randomly stopping cars that match a predetermined profile. When no offense is found they provide some bogus claim like "dim license plate lights" to justify the stop. I would not want to have to provide either finger prints or DNA as a result of these illegitimate stops.
Like fingerprints...should we take DNA swabs from all people arrested in the US? I believe some states collect the DNA from sex offenders and some felones. But why not all arrestees? Lots of crimes could be solved and innocent people could be spared jail time. So why the opposition? Are we moving in that direction?
The problem is not the DNA, the problem is in the analysis and contamination. By 2003, Houston's local authorities were against the DNA testing there because of the inaccuracies. There were virtually no rules and regulations. Lack of training plays huge here.
in Iraq they can turn around a case in 10 days. They more than likely also do not have a lot of regulations currently. What then is the difference?
Quote:
The laboratory in Bagdad, Iraq, is up and running. While its primary function appears to be the identification of human remains for those killed in the extensive violence there, DNA is also being used increasingly as a powerful weapon in their criminal justice system. In a recent interview with CNN, Dr. Amera Omar, the laboratory’s director talked about progress the lab was making and the importance of DNA in bringing peace and closure to victims. At the end of the piece, the reporter mentioned that in spite of the anxiety felt by family members and victims, they would have to wait at least 10 days for DNA results to identify their loved ones.
My problem is that this costs money. At some point, someone is going to get on the political stage and start screaming about smaller government and cuts. This leads to a McDonaldization and it won't be done as accurately as it should be. I seriously doubt that they would be able to handle each and every arrest as it stands.
Secondly, there is no reason that someone who has been arrested for a DUI should be forced to give a DNA sample. Not one. Invasion. Then there are those who have been arrested but not convicted. The public plays judge and jury due to the arrest, but largely forgets about the trial or lack of evidence or if the person was actually convicted.
Before I see everybody just hand over their rights, I would rather see that one state or even one prison goes through each and every inmate where DNA testing could resolve their case and uses it, in a timely manner.
Why not all? Pretty obvious answer... They haven't been convicted of any crime. If you support stealing DNA from people that haven't been convicted of anything, then you support stealing DNA from EVERYBODY, period. There is no in-between.
Like fingerprints...should we take DNA swabs from all people arrested in the US? I believe some states collect the DNA from sex offenders and some felones. But why not all arrestees? Lots of crimes could be solved and innocent people could be spared jail time. So why the opposition? Are we moving in that direction?
Absolutely, positively YES. What better way to start cataloging offenders?
What's the difference between taking DNA or fingerprints when someone's arrested? DNA is more reliable, and would allow law enforcement to trace guilty parties more quickly and efficiently, and as others mentioned, with less chance of arresting innocent people. Personally, if I were to be arrested, I'd prefer a quick swab of the cheek rather than inky fingers.
Stealing is a buzzword that does not contribute to useful discussion. The legal definition of theft requires that the article being stolen be taken for the purpose of permanent deprivation, and even joyriding does not constitute auto theft in most states, although interpretations of this vary.. Furthermore, it must be with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit. A DNA swab is of no use or benefit to its owner.
There may or may not be legitimate reasons why DNA should not be taken from a person against his will. But "stealing" is not one of them.
If you take something that belongs to me without my consent and without just legal cause, it is theft.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-01-2010 at 08:05 AM..
Reason: Please discuss the topic, not each other
Tell me - how much genetic information is stored in a fingerprint? What kind of information is available in a bunch of swirls on your thumb? Now answer the same two questions of a DNA sample.
Unless they need it to confirm that someone's guilty of the crime for which they were arrested, they have no reason to compel a DNA sample.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-01-2010 at 08:05 AM..
Reason: Please be respectful with each other
Why not all? Pretty obvious answer... They haven't been convicted of any crime. If you support stealing DNA from people that haven't been convicted of anything, then you support stealing DNA from EVERYBODY, period. There is no in-between.
It's not stealing. You have been accused of a crime. You forfeit your rights to your fingerprints when you do so. You should be forced to give up DNA. It may help clear you in the future, and it may save lives, too. There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" if people are arrested and forced to pay for their freedom, they are being assumed guilty anyways. If they were assumed innocent, they would be told "we are investigating an issue in which you are a suspect, have a nice day"
Yes! Fingerprints and DNA. Take a picture of the eyeball while you are at it for future advances in identification methodology while you are at it. If you aren't a criminal, you shouldn't be worried about it. If you were arrested, even those arrested falsely, DNA can only help prove your innocence. If I were arrested I would be begging to take my DNA, if I knew I had done nothing wrong.
I keep seeing this repeated. Unless the offense is assault/rape/murder investigators wouldn’t be collecting a DNA sample. If there is no evidence to match your DNA to, how would a DNA sample be beneficial for all arrests?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
