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.
You know how many people have been proven innocent or guilty via DNA? The accuracy of proper convictions and acquittals has skyrocketed since DNA was first used as evidence. I don't see why anyone should oppose this.
DNA testing isn't as reliable as the police would have you believe. DNA evidence can be planted, forged, etc. fter they take a sample. Seriously, just think about it: you're going to trust the police's own lab to be unbiased and reliable in testing, when they're the ones trying to put someone in jail to begin with. You really can't trust the police this way.
DNA testing isn't as reliable as the police would have you believe. DNA evidence can be planted, forged, etc. fter they take a sample. Seriously, just think about it: you're going to trust the police's own lab to be unbiased and reliable in testing, when they're the ones trying to put someone in jail to begin with. You really can't trust the police this way.
I would think there'd be two samples taken, one to send to an outside lab. Or you could get your DNA test done yourself beforehand and have your doctor file away the results, if you anticipate needing a comparison.
I don't agree with collecting DNA upon arrest. Conviction? Ok.... Upon arrest... no. What if the suspect is found innocent? Do they throw away the DNA? If they can keep DNA on people found innocent... why not collect from everyone?
Having said that, I still favor Obama over anyone I see on the conservative side of the fence.
Seriously? Are you kidding me? Why would this all of a sudden be an issue? If you're not a criminal, why would this bother you?
Being arrested doesn't make you a criminal. Being CONVICTED of a crime makes you a criminal. You can be falsely arrested, or mistakenly arrested, and that's all that is required to get your DNA? You have no problem with that?
I don't agree with collecting DNA upon arrest. Conviction? Ok.... Upon arrest... no. What if the suspect is found innocent? Do they throw away the DNA? If they can keep DNA on people found innocent... why not collect from everyone?
Having said that, I still favor Obama over anyone I see on the conservative side of the fence.
They will keep the DNA of people who are aquitted AND of people who had the charges even dropped! That's what's wrong about this! In fact, you could have been unlawfully arrested, and they would still keep the DNA.
I would think there'd be two samples taken, one to send to an outside lab. Or you could get your DNA test done yourself beforehand and have your doctor file away the results, if you anticipate needing a comparison.
That wouldn't stop them from planting evidence/tampering with evidence, and unless you have inside info., you'd never be able to prove it.
Some examples that have come to light, but corruption has probably covered many more I'm sure:
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.
