Supreme Court Rules Police Can Take DNA Swabs From Arrestees (Obama, independent)
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.
Me either. Since innocent people don't have anything to fear, I believe the government should be allowed to implant tracking devices into citizens so that they can monitor them at all times. Government should also install surveillance (video and audio) in all public spaces in order to prevent crime and, in case crime occurs, to easily identify and catch the perpetrators. Since the perps already have tracking devices implanted, there will be no longer any need for detective work, car chases, or physically fit cops.
This, in turn, improves public safety and tremendously reduces the costs associated with having crime, solving crime, and arresting perpetrators.
Since government is inherently good, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Abuse might happen, but we'll quickly nip it in the butt.
All of us innocent people will be much safer. How could anyone be opposed to this?
Sure. I know your being sarcastic, but lets also throw in politicians to the mix.
They should tag themselves and we should be able to monitor their every movement.
They are working for the public so they should have no expectation of privacy.
Course, they will throw in that "national security" thing to make them excluded
We can trust our overlords to monitor us, and we don't need to monitor them, because they are saintly and never do wrong.
In Hawaii, they took all of my fingerprints (for DL and for State ID)
In California, they took my thumb for DL and all of my fingerprints for a State ID.
And just because they only take your thumb, its still a fingerprint, that they store for years, never disposing.
So why is it okay for the POlice to take ALL of your fingerprints and keep them for years even after you've been released, but for DNA, its like "YOU BETTER DISPOSE OF THAT IF I'm CLEARED!!! blah blbah blah"
Digital photo and digital fingerprints is what we have now.
There's a reason the FedGov is building that huge data center in the middle of nowhere.
All that info has to be stored somewhere.
Digital photo and digital fingerprints is what we have now.
funny. I remember getting ink on my fingers and using petroleum jelly and a kleenex to get the ink off of my fingers. My fingerprints are still on two cards in Hawaii, sitting in some vault somewhere.
and you still didn't answer my question:
Why is it okay for POLICE to keep fingerprints on file for years, even after you've been cleared, but people go crazy if their DNA is done the same
Wow! A lot of lefties here are agreeing with Clarence Thomas.
Who would have thunk it?
And a lot of Conservative posters agree with the three liberal women members of the court. Hell freezing over? Maybe some people need to relook at their political views on this board?
The problem is how to remove incorrect or malicious information from the database. Just because something is recorded does not make it real.
Which directly disputes your previous posting
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
Why would you object to being positively identified? Are you afraid of who you are or what you have done?
It would provide the information to support my alibi for a crime I did not commit. If I actually committed the crime than positive ID is just a win for the innocent and too damn bad for me.
Which is it? You support information that might be wrong, or dont?
Taking a sample to determine if you're involved in a crime, in my opinion is reasonable. Keeping that DNA info on file after you're found to NOT be involved is the problem. That info should immediately be destroyed if you're cleared of wrong doing.
And what do you suppose the 450 million sets of finger prints on file with the FBI are used for? Frankly, considering the utter lack of science involved with finger print matching, I think that DNA is a far, far greater protection for the falsely accused.
I agree with Scalia. This is more shredding of the Constitution. I'm sure law enforcement will love it. They are of the "Guilty until proven innocent" mindset. There are many people wrongly arrested in this country, and then have charges dropped and never go to trial. But they'll be treated like a criminal even though charges are dropped.
Why not take DNA AFTER a conviction? Because one is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty! No, not in America anymore.
People who are for this because they've done nothing wrong are the people who are bending over while the USA becomes more of a Police State. Things like this should be judged in light of the Constitution.
All Law Enforcement in this country are anti-Constitution punk thugs. They spend their lives working on more schemes to deprive Americans of Liberty! I only hope I live long enough to see this country taken back! I doubt I will.
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.