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 agree with the majority. We have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. If someone has already been arrested for a serious crime, whether they are guilty or innocent, it is reasonable to verify the identity of the arrested individual. The DNA collected should only be used for identification purposes, and the DNA collected destroyed once identification has been verified. Because unlike fingerprints, DNA can be used to provide additional information that nobody has any business obtaining.
Don't fall for the fib that the dna is to id the arrestee. It was at least 4 months after King's arrest that they 'matched' him to the other crime. They already knew King was King. If you agree with the majority that it's ok to continue eviscerating the 4th amendment because we might connect an arrestee to an unsolved crime, fine. Let's not pretend the reason is to id a person for the crime they are currently arrested for.
But we are an innocent until guilty society. Why not take everyones DNA then at birth, how is that any different?
Yes, and you are still presumed innocent after they take your precious saliva. I side with the conservative judges on this issue. I am ok with it, because DNA is a powerful tool in fighting crime and bringing criminals to justice.
When I got my clearance many years ago they knew about my fight in fifth grade with Skinny Mulligan. It was on my permanent record. They know everything. :grin:
Joke aside, there is no privacy. If you are fingerprinted at arrest, your prints are entered into a database. They are digitizing millions of old print records every year.
Wait until the technology exisits to read an individuals mind. Once a year we'll be straped into a barbers chair and forced to wear a spaghetti strainer on our heads while the gubemint worker bees scan our thoughts for crimes.
Of course the useful idiots will say if it catches one criminal it will be worth it.
Wait until the technology exisits to read an individuals mind. Once a year we'll be straped into a barbers chair and forced to wear a spaghetti strainer on our heads while the gubemint worker bees scan our thoughts for crimes.
Of course the useful idiots will say if it catches one criminal it will be worth it.
Don't fall for the fib that the dna is to id the arrestee. It was at least 4 months after King's arrest that they 'matched' him to the other crime. They already knew King was King. If you agree with the majority that it's ok to continue eviscerating the 4th amendment because we might connect an arrestee to an unsolved crime, fine. Let's not pretend the reason is to id a person for the crime they are currently arrested for.
When a police officer runs your finger prints at a driving stop...He has your ID, he doenst need to ID you, he is checking to see if you are wanted for any other infactions. [same at the precint]
If you are wanted on suspicion of auto theft on another incedent, The judge has already sworn out an arrest warrant.
If there is an outstanding case of a rape and "DNA" is found at the scene...there is no way to connect that "DNA" to a suspect[at that moment]. Its like having a set of fingerprints at a crime scene. The Judge does not have to swear out a warrant for law enforcement to do a data bank search of fingerprints.
Note: finger prints or DNA is not a conclusive indication of guilt.
One of the consequences of electing liberals, is that you get more and more judges willing to violate the Constitution's most fundamental purpose: To make goverrnment leave law-abiding people alone.
Little Acorn, I am curious.
You posted this statement warning of the consequence of electing liberals, and hence getting liberals onto the Supreme Court. The tenor of your post is that you disagreed with the Court ruling.
However, it was quickly pointed out to you that it was 'conservative' justices who made up the majority, and that the liberals dissented (Justice Scalia leading the dissent)
Hence, it appears that you make a quick judgement against the ruling based upon your erroneous belief that the majority was made up of liberals.
My question: if you had known, from the outset, that conservatives were the majority in this decision, would it have influenced your opinion concerning this case? In other words, would you have posted a favorable viewpoint of the decision?
I ask because it does seem that many herein seem to make 'snap' decisions based on such factors, without bothering to read and understand the court's decision.
For myself, I have not yet had a chance to read the decision, hence I have no opinion yet (sometimes what the 'news media' reports as the 'ultimate' ruling in a decision is erroneous; this case may be much more narrower in scope than people think; or, conversely, it may be a 'blanket' endorsement of DNA testing of suspects).
I ask you because I found it odd that you never returned to this thread. Perhaps it no longer held your interest.
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.
