|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Old Frank 
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 2:09 pm |
|
   |
"...The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments this week about whether law enforcement officials have a constitutional right to collect DNA after an arrest and before a person has been convicted of a crime. The argument in favor of this practice holds that it is no different than fingerprinting during a booking procedure. But DNA furnishes much more information than the fingerprint's simple ID and thus raises a range of issues about whether gathering a sample upon arrest would violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures....."
http://news.yahoo.com/editori....04.html
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 2:12 pm |
|
 |
Totally unreasonable. It's sad that it's even being discussed.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
ol-zeke
me in the Tetons
Group: Members
Posts: 10792
Joined: Sep. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 2:30 pm |
|
|
I have no issue with mouth swabbing a person in custody, or collecting their hair off the linens. If they are bleeding, the bandages could be sent to the lab. Booking a suspect is a process of identification, and if that information leads to a conviction or a release, so be it. Too many folks have been convicted wrongly, and the DNA evidence later has proven their innocence.
--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.
The easiest way to ruin a Friday is to realize it is only Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5420
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 2:51 pm |
|
|
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 26 2013, 2:30 pm)
QUOTE I have no issue with mouth swabbing a person in custody, or collecting their hair off the linens. If they are bleeding, the bandages could be sent to the lab. Booking a suspect is a process of identification, and if that information leads to a conviction or a release, so be it. Too many folks have been convicted wrongly, and the DNA evidence later has proven their innocence.
What sets them free is the DNA at the crime scene. They don't need to have their DNA extracted against their will for DNA to set the innocent free.
If all dna evidence is destroyed if the person is not convicted, then it isn't much different from fingerprints.
Of course, unlike fingerprints, DNA can be easily planted at a crime scene, by a perp or the police.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 3:04 pm |
|
|
I would say not until conviction
Not without a warrant
State needs to prove need since you cannot unring that bell once you are in the system
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 3:28 pm |
|
|
(nogods @ Feb. 26 2013, 11:51 am)
QUOTE
(ol-zeke @ Feb. 26 2013, 2:30 pm)
QUOTE I have no issue with mouth swabbing a person in custody, or collecting their hair off the linens. If they are bleeding, the bandages could be sent to the lab. Booking a suspect is a process of identification, and if that information leads to a conviction or a release, so be it. Too many folks have been convicted wrongly, and the DNA evidence later has proven their innocence. What sets them free is the DNA at the crime scene. They don't need to have their DNA extracted against their will for DNA to set the innocent free. If all dna evidence is destroyed if the person is not convicted, then it isn't much different from fingerprints. Of course, unlike fingerprints, DNA can be easily planted at a crime scene, by a perp or the police.
When a person has failed to have been convicted their fingerprint record etc. is completely destroyed? Or am I misinterpreting the section I bolded?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 6:27 pm |
|
|
I am not a fan of anything being "collected" assuming that you have identification
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 10:28 pm |
|
|
I have no issue with collecting ID material during booking because the person may escape before trial but ALL such collected materials should be destroyed if the person is found innocent.
The military still has my fingerprints 30 years after discharge but I believe they should have been destroyed upon my honorable completion of military service.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 26 2013, 10:53 pm |
|
|
In the event of no conviction the material is destroyed per the law.
"Maryland, backed at the court by all the states, the District of Columbia and the Obama administration, allows the collection of DNA samples from those arrested for, but not yet convicted of, a crime of violence, an attempted crime of violence, a burglary or an attempted burglary. If the arrest does not lead to a conviction, the sample is supposed to be destroyed"
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politic....0000205
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8754
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2013, 11:03 am |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 26 2013, 2:25 pm)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Feb. 26 2013, 11:12 am)
QUOTE Totally unreasonable. It's sad that it's even being discussed. Is that also how you judge finger printing? What about the taking of a photograph? (mugshot). LIke a photograph or fingerprinting a cheek swab isn't an invasive medical procedure so with DNA, restricted to sequencing for identification purposes and it's a variation on a digitized fingerprint, except offering a far higher degree of accuracy.
We already use fingerprinting and photographs for identification, so why do we need DNA? Unless, of course, someone has removed their fingerprints by burning, etc.
Why limit the database to those arrested? As good citizens, we should all submit our DNA to make crime scene investigation easier, er, I mean to help us win the War on Terror.
FWIW, I also believe fingerprint/photographs should automatically be removed from the database for those cases that do not result in conviction.
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2013, 12:09 pm |
|
|
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Feb. 27 2013, 8:03 am)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 26 2013, 2:25 pm)
QUOTE
(WalksWithBlackflies @ Feb. 26 2013, 11:12 am)
QUOTE Totally unreasonable. It's sad that it's even being discussed. Is that also how you judge finger printing? What about the taking of a photograph? (mugshot). LIke a photograph or fingerprinting a cheek swab isn't an invasive medical procedure so with DNA, restricted to sequencing for identification purposes and it's a variation on a digitized fingerprint, except offering a far higher degree of accuracy. We already use fingerprinting and photographs for identification, so why do we need DNA? Unless, of course, someone has removed their fingerprints by burning, etc. Why limit the database to those arrested? As good citizens, we should all submit our DNA to make crime scene investigation easier, er, I mean to help us win the War on Terror. FWIW, I also believe fingerprint/photographs should automatically be removed from the database for those cases that do not result in conviction.
DNA is a far more reliable method of identification than either a photograph of a person's very changeable appearance or fingerprints which are often either entirely absent from a crime scene or poorly recorded.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 27 2013, 10:27 pm |
|
|
Why is it that we fight the advance of science so hard??
DNA is a reliable method to identify and stop serial killers and rapists. I have never thought it was any kind of an intrusion that my fingerprints were collected and archived by the military and the FBI during my Navy days.
What about the chilling effect it would have for potential killers and rapists to know that their DNA is on file and will be matched if they kill or rape? Do we really want to protect the identity of killers and rapists??
I certainly hope that the Supreme Court agrees with my view point. We need all the help we can get to diminish violence in America.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 28 2013, 3:54 pm |
|
|
Having your picture, or fingerprints, or DNA on file has absolutely nothing to do with being guilty or innocent of anything, much less being guilty of a violent crime.
Your participation in the violent crime determines your guilt, not the fact that you can be successfully identified as taking part in said crime.
You are just as much presumed innocent as ever, untill the prosecution provides the documented facts of how and where the sample of your DNA was collected. Your defense attorney gets the same opportunities to show how and where the evidence has been manipulated or falsified, and a jury still has to be persuaded that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, just much more reliable information than eye witnesses and personal alibis. IMHO, of course.
It won't be all that long until everyone has a bio chip for personal ID and health care history anyway, probably should throw in DNA too.Works good for my dog, why should we be deprived??
The troglydites never want to move on to new science and the freedom it brings with it. They prefer to go back to burning witches, instead.
Isn't this already what we do with special operators like the Seal Teams??
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6029
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2013, 10:21 am |
|
|
So much for the fourth and fifth amendments.....
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39564
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 01 2013, 3:38 pm |
|
|
Since fingerprints do not violate the fifth neither would a dna sequence.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4057
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 6:50 pm |
|
|
I am beginning to see a pattern. Right wing gun nuts identify with and want to protect violent criminals, especially if they happen to rape and kill women.
No wonder they don't want sensible improvements of gun safety to make guns less deadly in the hands of a mass killer.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 03 2013, 9:25 am |
|
|
"If you want my DNA, you'll have to pry it from my dead, cold fingers."
I like it. Kinda catchy.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
