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.
The federal government has had mandatory DNA specimen collection for about the past SEVEN years of all felons confined with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Inmate do not have a choice. Within the first six months of incarceration, they are required to report to health services and submit a DNA specimen.
It has already proven extremely useful in a couple of hundred new convictions of convicts released from prison who commit additional crimes, and solved many other unsolved crimes related to criminals already in the system.
I see the cost is estimated at $1500 for criminal testing purposes. if you take a swab at the time of arrest and the person arrested is later put on trial for a serious offense, what is $1500 compared to the cost of a trial dragging on for lack of good (non-refutable) evidence?
I don't agree with swabbing every arrestee. If the estimated cost is $1500 (fifteen hundred?) for legal purposes, do you know how many tests would be done in your state alone? The number of DUI arrests in 2008 in Oklahoma was 18,890, Texas 90,066, North Carolina around 50,00.
Even if the cost was $15.00 (fifteen dollars) that is quite a bit of money for DUI arrests not taking into account the total amount of arrests each year per state.
Where is the money to pay for all DNA tests going to come from. Your tax dollars?
I doubt that DNA evidence would preclude a trial either. We are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. In a criminal felony case it is not the trial itself that drags on, it is all the time it takes to subpoena witnesses, determine indigence of defendant, competency hearings, arraignment, petitions for writ of mandamus and refusal of or whatever, and all the time the defendent is in the county jail.
I just do not see that it is cost effective. Especially if the arrestee is a first time, like the poster already said, what is there to compare to?
Probably just need to leave DNA testing for incarcerated convicted inmates.
I don't agree with swabbing every arrestee. If the estimated cost is $1500 (fifteen hundred?) for legal purposes, do you know how many tests would be done in your state alone? The number of DUI arrests in 2008 in Oklahoma was 18,890, Texas 90,066, North Carolina around 50,00.
Even if the cost was $15.00 (fifteen dollars) that is quite a bit of money for DUI arrests not taking into account the total amount of arrests each year per state.
Where is the money to pay for all DNA tests going to come from. Your tax dollars?
I doubt that DNA evidence would preclude a trial either. We are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. In a criminal felony case it is not the trial itself that drags on, it is all the time it takes to subpoena witnesses, determine indigence of defendant, competency hearings, arraignment, petitions for writ of mandamus and refusal of or whatever, and all the time the defendent is in the county jail.
I just do not see that it is cost effective. Especially if the arrestee is a first time, like the poster already said, what is there to compare to?
Probably just need to leave DNA testing for incarcerated convicted inmates.
So what, it costs $15...you are arrested...you pay the fee! Isn't that the way is should be? Why should anyone but the one arrested have to pay for it. You do the crime...you pay the fine. Simple...I still say it will catch other criminal activity that currently is wasting even more money and resource that is slipping through the cracks because career criminals are being picked up for lesser crimes and the authorities don't realize that this person has DNA in another crime and is being sought. If the DNA were being collected and matched routinely, we would be saving money by catching these career criminals that we are currently turning back out onto the streets. (I don't have to connect the dots for you, I think you know which career criminals we mean here.)
So what, it costs $15...you are arrested...you pay the fee! Isn't that the way is should be? Why should anyone but the one arrested have to pay for it. You do the crime...you pay the fine. Simple...I still say it will catch other criminal activity that currently is wasting even more money and resource that is slipping through the cracks because career criminals are being picked up for lesser crimes and the authorities don't realize that this person has DNA in another crime and is being sought. If the DNA were being collected and matched routinely, we would be saving money by catching these career criminals that we are currently turning back out onto the streets. (I don't have to connect the dots for you, I think you know which career criminals we mean here.)
Im not sure I understand how a DNA sample would be useful.
People I know that have been arrested the offense was fighting, drinking, DUI, domestic, unpaid tickets, hot check, posession, loose dog, child support, driving on suspended liscense, theft.
So they take a DNA sample. Are they going to run it against every other arrest and every crime investigation dna evidence in the country.
I dont see how this is do-able. First every police station would have to be set up with a giant dna database. They would also have to have quick access to a lab to get the dna results. All this would have to be done, results and match, within the short time between booking and bail.
My son had to take a pee test for a new job. He did this on a friday at a specific facility. He could'nt go to work until Tuesday because it took that long to get the results back.
So technically if you were arrested on a minor infraction, say PD, you could be held for 5 days until your dna was collected, analyzed and run through a database. Guilty until proven innocent of some crime some where, until you can even post bail.
The big problem I have with that is that no matter what basically good ideas humans come up with, there is always abuse. I just don't trust organizations of any type. And that's where that entire DNA craze gets dangerous to society in my view. No CSI show can dispel my doubts...
The big problem I have with that is that no matter what basically good ideas humans come up with, there is always abuse. I just don't trust organizations of any type. And that's where that entire DNA craze gets dangerous to society in my view. No CSI show can dispel my doubts...
I agree, just like the case of Bob Macy and former forensic chemist Gilchrist, who never let the prosecution down, who together convicted people of crimes they didn't do. What if the evidence is not challenged?
Whatever the cost of DNA testing, if an arrestee is jailed for his arrest, then the costs involving the DNA test would be added to the rest of the court costs and other expenses.
Look at your county district court records and see how many of those cases are paid in full.
I see very many in my county/state that are not.
www.odcr.com
A Houston, TX crime lab that did DNA testing was shut down and called the worst lab in the country after a state audit. Worst Crime Lab in the Country??
If there is a margin for corruption in law enforcement, you can probably at some level find corruption.
Last edited by tinynot; 06-10-2010 at 04:16 PM..
Reason: added info about court records
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.
What?
Think about what the purpose of the fingerprints are. That's right, it's for identification. Whether it's comparing prints with a person or comparing them pulled off a door handle at a crime scene, the prints are simply to match a person to a person and/or place.
DNA is just a better fingerprint, all it is for is to identify people and in some cases even narrow the pool of potential people.
I dont see how this is do-able. First every police station would have to be set up with a giant dna database. They would also have to have quick access to a lab to get the dna results. All this would have to be done, results and match, within the short time between booking and bail.
Negative.
A database can be centralized, every police station doesn't need to have a giant DNA database all they need is the facilities to take a sample.
I don't think we're aiming for (at least today) being able to run every prisoner against DNA during processing and give a thumbs up or down. You swab 'em, drop q-tip in a tube, and send that to whereever the DNA samples go. Eventually the person ends up in a database that can be matched with other known samples.
A database can be centralized, every police station doesn't need to have a giant DNA database all they need is the facilities to take a sample.
Ok. So the individual police stations dont have to run the DNA. I can see that.
Quote:
I don't think we're aiming for (at least today) being able to run every prisoner against DNA during processing and give a thumbs up or down. You swab 'em, drop q-tip in a tube, and send that to whereever the DNA samples go. Eventually the person ends up in a database that can be matched with other known samples
And that does what exactly. Says this person has been arrested before?
Think for a minute, who is going to be swabing, tagging and sending off the sample? . I am amused because my bro. worked as a jailer before he bacame an officer. Part of his duties was to administer meds. and they also expected them to act as a med tech even tho they had no medical training. He drew the line when they asked him to examine swelling on an inmates testiclse. I can just imagine requiring officer or jailers to be responsible for these DNA samples.
Another problem I see is the big "race card". Dont laugh.
As it is now officers cant run identifications thru a database to identify illegals. Many voices screaming racial descrimination. The same will happen when you begin to identify and isolate habitual criminals.
Again the cost. Even if one swab cost only $15 (which I doubt) that you believe will be recouped by the arrestee, the state will still have to contract with a lab, and some areas just dont have that kind of facility available. Government contracts can get complicated and expensive. You will also have the expense of setting up (software/hardware), running (salaries + overhead) and maintaining (contracting with another outside agency) a central data base. And then you have the human error problem at every step.
I just dont believe the ends will justify the means.
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.
. I am amused because my bro. worked as a jailer before he bacame an officer. Part of his duties was to administer meds. and they also expected them to act as a med tech even tho they had no medical training. He drew the line when they asked him to examine swelling on an inmates testiclse.
I can just imagine requiring officer or jailers to be responsible for these DNA samples.
