DNA taken upon arrest ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Modelworks

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
I wasn't aware there were 18 states already doing this.
I can understand their reasoning but I think it should be DNA sample taken upon conviction , not arrest. What is to stop someone from placing me at the scene of a crime by grabbing a hair I lose while out in public ?

They want to go with biometric ID cards for work too . Connecting DNA , which contains everything about you physically, with an id card linked to a card which identifies you by a scan of your blood vessels on the top of your hand would probably happen once both are in place. I don't like the direction this is going.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html
In an interview aired Saturday on “America’s Most Wanted,” Obama expressed strong agreement as host John Walsh extolled the virtues of collecting DNA at the time of an arrest and putting it into a single, national database.

“We have 18 states who are taking DNA upon arrest,” Walsh said. “It’s no different than fingerprinting or a booking photo. ... Since those states have been doing it, it has cleared 200 people that are innocent from jail.”

“It’s the right thing to do,” Obama replied. “This is where the national registry becomes so important, because what you have is individual states — they may have a database, but if they’re not sharing it with the state next door, you’ve got a guy from Illinois driving over into Indiana, and they’re not talking to each other.”
Click to expand...
 
HannibalX

HannibalX

Diamond Member
May 12, 2000
9,359
2
0
I think letting them have it upon conviction would be fine. Lots of people get arrested and aren't convicted but now they're "in the system".
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The goal, for reasons good and bad, would be to get DNA from everyone.

There are a lot of ways to do this, getting around restrictions.

The 200 cleared by DNA seems to me a PR gimmick - I saw a figure that only 5% of the relevant crimes have the situation where DNA can clear or convict, so that all those '200 were cleared' type statistics can be multiplied by 20 for the number who were wrongly convicted but DNA evidence wasn't available at the scene to clear them.

Presumably, innocent people charged where there is DNA from the scene can voluntarily give samples to clear them, making this a non-reason for collecting it.

It's an issue ripe for debate between the benefits and harms, the tradeoffs of some accountability for wrongdoers with liberties of all.
 
A

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Say Sieg Heil to FuehrerObama, to the great National Socialist American Worker's Party! Civil liberties be damned.
 
P

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Personally I think they should be able to collect on arrest, but then only keep the dna on conviction. If there is no conviction following the arrest, the sample should be destroyed.

It really irritates me when I hear them talking about it being like a photo or fingerprint. That's just a lie. A photo doesn't give you insight into what diseases someone might have or potentially get, what genetic issues might be there, who their biological relatives are and a host of other things. DNA is a portal into so much more information, a photo or fingerprint is simply a means of identification.
 
A

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Craig234 said:
The goal, for reasons good and bad, would be to get DNA from everyone.

There are a lot of ways to do this, getting around restrictions.

The 200 cleared by DNA seems to me a PR gimmick - I saw a figure that only 5% of the relevant crimes have the situation where DNA can clear or convict, so that all those '200 were cleared' type statistics can be multiplied by 20 for the number who were wrongly convicted but DNA evidence wasn't available at the scene to clear them.

Presumably, innocent people charged where there is DNA from the scene can voluntarily give samples to clear them, making this a non-reason for collecting it.

It's an issue ripe for debate between the benefits and harms, the tradeoffs of some accountability for wrongdoers with liberties of all.
Click to expand...

Why do you place unconditional trust on the government to do the right thing?
 
M

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
Craig234 said:
The goal, for reasons good and bad, would be to get DNA from everyone.

There are a lot of ways to do this, getting around restrictions.

The 200 cleared by DNA seems to me a PR gimmick - I saw a figure that only 5% of the relevant crimes have the situation where DNA can clear or convict, so that all those '200 were cleared' type statistics can be multiplied by 20 for the number who were wrongly convicted but DNA evidence wasn't available at the scene to clear them.

Presumably, innocent people charged where there is DNA from the scene can voluntarily give samples to clear them, making this a non-reason for collecting it.

It's an issue ripe for debate between the benefits and harms, the tradeoffs of some accountability for wrongdoers with liberties of all.
Click to expand...

Really, there is no way to defend getting the DNA of everyone.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
alphatarget1 said:
Why do you place unconditional trust on the government to do the right thing?
Click to expand...

What part of "for good and bad", "benefits and harms", "tradeoffs... with liberties of all" did you not understand?

Are you new here or something, after hundreds of my posts about government wrongdoing and abuses of rights of people, some American some not?

I could post 'wear a jacket but only when it's cold' and some here would claim I said to wear one in 100 degree heat in July. They just can't read what's in front of them.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,337
136
PokerGuy said:
Personally I think they should be able to collect on arrest, but then only keep the dna on conviction. If there is no conviction following the arrest, the sample should be destroyed.
Click to expand...
I don't trust them to destroy it.
 
theflyingpig

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
You would be a fool to complain about this. The DNA database is going to happen, and no amount of internet bickering is going to stop it. Just accept reality and move on. Everyone knows this.
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
So why is this bad but fingerprints are ok? Mug shot/Pictures?

Its DNA, they are not cutting off your left nut on arrest.
 
I

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
This is old news. The video cameras are popping up on every street corner. There won't be a moment outside your home that you aren't on video and audio. The DNA database has been in place for years. All digital communications have been tracked for years. The internet 'driving license' movement is in mainstream news. The control grid is in place. Its too late to complain just stick out your right arm and accept your chip when they call your number.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,555
9,791
136
Craig234 said:
The goal, for reasons good and bad, would be to get DNA from everyone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It doesn't matter how they obtain it, their intention is to have everyone in the database. They take it from your children as they are born at the hospital. With that in place it's only a matter of time until those born outside the system are no more.

What will you do, give birth outside a hospital? Avoid coming in for vaccinations or avoid going to public schools? Avoid randomly being arrested?

You will not reasonably avoid your DNA being part of the database, if it isn't already.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,337
136
alphatarget1 said:
A cop who was bullied in school can "arrest" you because it "appears that you were committing a felony". You are required to give up your DNA as a result.

I suggest y'all read 1984 by George Orwell.
Click to expand...

My statement still holds. Exonerated doesn't mean they will destroy it. More likely, already in some coding national system by then.

I read Patriots by James Rawles instead. Working on my compound now.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
alphatarget1 said:
Say Sieg Heil to FuehrerObama, to the great National Socialist American Worker's Party! Civil liberties be damned.
Click to expand...
Funny, but I don't think we can quite blame this on Obama as it's been going on for quite some time.

I'm conflicted - I can see the danger of prosecutors attempting to gin up a case against you if a hair at a crime scene matches (maybe there're hairs from a dozen people but you're the first one ID'd) or cops arresting people for no reason except a suspicion. I can also see the advantage in solving very difficult cases like random murders.

Dang, that's perilously close to agreeing with Craig. I'm not sure either of us could take that shock.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,337
136
werepossum said:
I'm conflicted - I can see the danger of prosecutors attempting to gin up a case against you if a hair at a crime scene matches (maybe there're hairs from a dozen people but you're the first one ID'd) or cops arresting people for no reason except a suspicion. I can also see the advantage in solving very difficult cases like random murders.
Click to expand...
He was already in the system, hence his DNA collection. But he would have never been caught otherwise.
http://216.116.225.82/stories/2002/08/30/met_355618.shtml
 
Patranus

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Why don't we just take DNA at birth/citizenship/legal immigration and be done with it.

GATTACA here we come :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom