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.
Apparently it wasn't such of an invasion of privacy in 2006.
I have a question for those so against this. If Obama had repealed this can you honestly say you would be on C-D singing his praises about reducing intrusion in our private lives? I have a sneaking suspicion there would be more people complaining about being soft on crime.
Yeah, this stuff is old hat. Doesn't anyone ever watch say....Law and Order?
Taking DNA samples from the arrested person goes back to the OJ trial...it's pretty much a given in todays environment.
In fact, the innocence project relies HEAVILY on DNA to get the wrongly convicted released.
Heck DNA evidence helped exonerate Kobe Bryant in the Colorado case where rape was alledged. After they found 2-3 different guys fresh semen on the gal it pretty much shredded the criminal case.
So you catch some guy fitting the description of a serial rapist running away from the scene of a recent rape and he has a knife on him of the type used in the assaults etc. but no way are you going to get a conviction based upon just that. So, you arrrest him take a DNA sample and voila you don't wind up convicting the wrong guy and if you got him you got him.
They would have probable cause to compel a sample. Existing laws already deal with your hypothetical situation - no national, compulsory database needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
This isn't a California thing, this is all over the US and has been going on for a while.
I never said that it was only California. I said that California was doing it. Are you saying that it's a Federal law? If so, can you point me to some sort of.. oh, I don't know... section of the U.S. Code that states it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
You know that if they don't have probable cause for arrest and hence DNA collection that way, they can pick up your discarded cigarette butt etc. and test it?
Of course they can, and if they want to go to that much effort to legally obtain a sample of my DNA, they're welcome to. The legality of storing that sample when I'm not suspected of committing any crime could be dicey - I would expect a lengthy and very high profile court battle over something like that.
Asking (or forcing) me to "volunteer" a sample is way out of line, though, and it simply ain't gonna happen.
Heck DNA evidence helped exonerate Kobe Bryant in the Colorado case where rape was alledged. After they found 2-3 different guys fresh semen on the gal it pretty much shredded the criminal case.
how many of those 2-3 guys had DNA in a criminal database?
you do realize that it's not necessary to have access to DNA from persons B and C in order to determine that a given sample does not belong to person A, right?
"The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, 'It’s the right thing to do' to 'tighten the grip around folks' who commit crime.' Obama told [John] Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies."
Soooooo, if you are of the progressive persuasion, and think minorities are unfairly targeted for arrest, what do you say?
If you have to have a conviction before you can collect DNA you will never be able to use DNA to get a conviction.
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.