NationStates Jolt Archive

After reading my "brilliant" idea again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508189) I got to thinking about civil rights adn liberities, and I decided to right this scenario to see how people would react.

You live in a small town of about 500 people total. Your community is a small, tight-knit one, and very plain. The biggest news stories of the day were a cat stuck in a tree and a trafic accadent.
Well that just changed. A little while ago, rape/murder was committed in the town. The police have almost no leads except one: they found the perpetrators DNA at the scene. The DNA was not in the crime database, so they do not know who to match it to. So they decide to go around town asking for DNA samples. They come to your door and ask you to take 5 to 10 minutes out of oyur day to hand over a sample. How do you react?

No problem! I didn't do it, so I have nothing to hide.

Fine really, if it helps the investigation and helps remove me as a witness.

yeh, sure. but only if they agree to not keep my dna on record after they've eliminated it from the investigation.

yeh, sure. but only if they agree to not keep my dna on record after they've eliminated it from the investigation.

What he said.

And as long they use orange swabs for taking my cheek cells. None of that plain white stuff.

Unless I was convinced they were trying to stich me up or if I'd actually done it I'd happily hand it over... otherwise it would just make me a suspect and I don't need that.

As long as it doesn't get added to a permanent database, why not?

Did I do it?

Well, absolutely. They're not doing anything wrong by asking me for a DNA sample; I wouldn't even care if they kept it in a database as long as they told me that was going to be the case. I would really think in this case that it would help you find the suspect by focusing on the people who refused to provide the DNA data.

"Go on... TAKE MY SPERM, THEN!"

And then I'd weep, maybe. But hand it over.

After reading my "brilliant" idea again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508189) I got to thinking about civil rights adn liberities, and I decided to right this scenario to see how people would react.

You live in a small town of about 500 people total. Your community is a small, tight-knit one, and very plain. The biggest news stories of the day were a cat stuck in a tree and a trafic accadent.
Well that just changed. A little while ago, rape/murder was committed in the town. The police have almost no leads except one: they found the perpetrators DNA at the scene. The DNA was not in the crime database, so they do not know who to match it to. So they decide to go around town asking for DNA samples. They come to your door and ask you to take 5 to 10 minutes out of oyur day to hand over a sample. How do you react?
5 or 10 minutes? I rip out 5 strands of hair, put it in a ziplock bag with my name on it and hand it to them. what else do they need?

"Go on... TAKE MY SPERM, THEN!"

And then I'd weep, maybe. But hand it over.

... so you would take matters into your own hands, and not ask for police assistance then?

yeh, sure. but only if they agree to not keep my dna on record after they've eliminated it from the investigation.

Yeah, I'd include that as a condition.

So they decide to go around town asking for DNA samples.


Apparently they also decided to make any potential defense attorney's job way easier.

**imagines the potential for improper, coerced, unconstitutional, questionable, or otherwise illegal searches**


They come to your door and ask you to take 5 to 10 minutes out of oyur day to hand over a sample. How do you react?


I ask them to come back when they have a warrant, and then close the door. And no, my non-cooperation doesn't mean shit (other than indicating my knowledge of my constitutional rights, anyway). It is the job of the state to demonstrate warrant and eventual guilt; it is NOT my job to demonstrate my innocence as the legal process already assumes my innocence from the beginning. And besides that, I insist that the police actually make an effort to make a strong and legal case in order to maximize the potential for successful prosecution of the actual guilty party (see also my first comment above).

But the "non-cooperation = guilty of something" bullshit is the sort of jackbooted "thinking" that requires the enforcement of my constitutional right to politely close the door in the first place. I might have been more willing to accept that "the innocent have nothing to fear" before I was actually removed from a public bus at gun point by the local county sherriffs a year or so ago, having been suspected of a crime I didn't commit. While staring down the wrong end of several 9mm handguns, I realized that law enforcement can do a whole lot of damage to me without actually having to put me in jail...

Apparently they also decided to make any potential defense attorney's job way easier.

**imagines the potential for improper, coerced, unconstitutional, questionable, or otherwise illegal searches**



I ask them to come back when they have a warrant, and then close the door. And no, my non-cooperation doesn't mean shit (other than indicating my knowledge of my constitutional rights, anyway). It is the job of the state to demonstrate warrant and eventual guilt; it is NOT by job to demonstrate my innocence as the legal process already assumes my innocence from the beginning. And besides that, I insist that the police actually make an effort to make a strong and legal case in order to maximize the potential for successful prosecution of the actual guilty party.

But the "non-cooperation == guilty of something" bullshit is the sort of jackbooted "thinking" that requires the enforcement of my constitutional right to politely close the door in the first place. I might have been more willing to accept that "the innocent have nothing to fear" before I was actually removed from a public bus at gun point by the local county sherriffs a year or so ago, having been suspected of a crime I didn't commit. While staring down the wrong end of a 9mm handgun, I realized that law enforcement can do a whole lot of damage to me without actually having to put me in jail...

i just assumed that this situation meant that they already had warrants made out for everyone in the town. i don't know how likely that is. but i do agree with you that the assumption that non-compliance = guilty is stupid, at least without a warrant.

i just assumed that this situation meant that they already had warrants made out for everyone in the town.

I can't imagine how that could possibly be legal, considering the apparent dearth of evidence described in the situation. All the police possess is an unidentified DNA sample. If that is enough to get a search warrant on every single person in town, in the complete absense of any other evidence actually linking all of these people to the crime (such evidence being required to establish probable cause thereby justifying a search warrant), then one may as well eliminate the concept of "warrants," or any other civil, political, or constitutional rights, entirely.

I can't imagine how that could possibly be legal, considering the apparent dearth of evidence described in the situation. All the police possess is an unidentified DNA sample. If that is enough to get a search warrant on every single person in town, in the complete absense of any other evidence actually linking all of these people to the crime (such evidence being required to establish probable cause thereby justifying a search warrant), then one may as well eliminate the concept of "warrants," or any other civil, political, or constitutional rights, entirely.

ah okay. i don't know anything about my rights except i get a phonecall if i get arrested. i remember a police man came to our school when i was much younger to tell us all about the police and the law and drugs and stuff. but we were all too interested in the suitcase full of drugs he had to pay attention to anything else.

...but i do agree with you that the assumption that non-compliance = guilty is stupid, at least without a warrant.

The assumption is stupid in any situation or circumstance, period. The only thing that confers the legal status of "guilty" is the decision of a jury of one's peers (and even then, people have been found "guilty," only to be later cleared of the crime).

ah okay. i don't know anything about my rights...

Well, the state does know your rights and (and other than very specific local legal requirements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_rights)) isn't likely to assist you much in remembering or invoking them. Which is another good reason to just close the door...

I would have Absolutely nothing to Hide. Help yourself.

I would want to cooperate in any way I could to better help the authorities find the murderer. I'd be one less suspect after my DNA cleared me.

i voted yes, but i'm also infavour of collecting dna samples at birth.

Apparently they also decided to make any potential defense attorney's job way easier.

**imagines the potential for improper, coerced, unconstitutional, questionable, or otherwise illegal searches**wrong, if the police ask and you allow them, then it's not Coerced, Unconsititutional, nor illegal. if an officer asks to come into your home, and they see the heroin on your table, that's a legal search since you granted permission to their home and the Illegal substance was in plain sight. now if they had to open drawers...

or if they asked you if they could search your home for whatever and you said OK... then that is permission granted.

I ask them to come back when they have a warrant, and then close the door. And no, my non-cooperation doesn't mean shit (other than indicating my knowledge of my constitutional rights, anyway). It is the job of the state to demonstrate warrant and eventual guilt; it is NOT my job to demonstrate my innocence as the legal process already assumes my innocence from the beginning. And besides that, I insist that the police actually make an effort to make a strong and legal case in order to maximize the potential for successful prosecution of the actual guilty party (see also my first comment above).

But the "non-cooperation = guilty of something" bullshit is the sort of jackbooted "thinking" that requires the enforcement of my constitutional right to politely close the door in the first place. I might have been more willing to accept that "the innocent have nothing to fear" before I was actually removed from a public bus at gun point by the local county sherriffs a year or so ago, having been suspected of a crime I didn't commit. While staring down the wrong end of several 9mm handguns, I realized that law enforcement can do a whole lot of damage to me without actually having to put me in jail...asking for a warrant is your right, and does not presume anything.

i just assumed that this situation meant that they already had warrants made out for everyone in the town. i don't know how likely that is. but i do agree with you that the assumption that non-compliance = guilty is stupid, at least without a warrant.
Warrants cannot just be made like that. there has to be probable cause. say there is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that Mr. A did a crime, they submit their findings to a judge and the Judge issues the warrant if he/she thinks there is enough evidence to justify a search. the situation the OP provided does not and will not allow a "blanket" warrant for obtaining such evidence.

wrong, if the police ask and you allow them, then it's not Coerced, Unconsititutional, nor illegal.


Says the prosecution, perhaps. But my point was more along the lines that if the officers conducting these searches so much as sneeze funny during the process, accusations of everything I describe are going to start flying in every direction. The resulting legal storm (especially considering the sheer number of legal questions and issues likely raised in a town-wide search like that described) is probably something that the prosecution would rather avoid. The chances of handing the defense its reasonable doubt on a silver platter is simply too great.

Says the prosecution, perhaps. But my point was more along the lines that if the officers conducting these searches so much as sneeze funny during the process, accusations of everything I describe are going to start flying in every direction. The resulting legal storm (especially considering the sheer number of legal questions and issues likely raised in a town-wide search like that described) is probably something that the prosecution would rather avoid. The chances of handing the defense its reasonable doubt on a silver platter is simply too great.as long as the officers can prove they obtained the sample honestly, saying what they needed it for and why. if the person agrees, then they are giving the officers permission to collect their DNA. Non coercion and perfectly legal. and once permission is given and the DNA taken, one cannot then "Change their mind." that may bring up Probable cause to search for other incriminating evidence.

Usually tho, they first obtain samples from people with ties to the victims. say, neighbors, school facultiy, friends/co-workers and won't do a Blanket sweep like that. with only 500 population, I doubt there will be any crime lab to process the work quickly and thus needs to be sent to one.

there's alot the OP left out but for the sake of simplicity... i didn't harp on them.

After reading my "brilliant" idea again (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508189) I got to thinking about civil rights adn liberities, and I decided to right this scenario to see how people would react.

You live in a small town of about 500 people total. Your community is a small, tight-knit one, and very plain. The biggest news stories of the day were a cat stuck in a tree and a trafic accadent.
Well that just changed. A little while ago, rape/murder was committed in the town. The police have almost no leads except one: they found the perpetrators DNA at the scene. The DNA was not in the crime database, so they do not know who to match it to. So they decide to go around town asking for DNA samples. They come to your door and ask you to take 5 to 10 minutes out of oyur day to hand over a sample. How do you react?

But if I gave them as sample, they might find out that I'm the one who did it!!!

*runs away screaming*

leave. i would not want to live in a small town anyway.

As long as they can guarantee my anonymity (protection of data privacy etc.) and don't store the stuff afterwards.

Although I wouldn't like my DNA to be stored anywhere. There's a lot of things that can be done with it, after all.

If it is getting added to a permanent database and wont be used to prove i commited other crimes then maybe.

I don't think I would trust the police to use my biometric data according to privacy laws. I'd wait for a judge to order the police to take DNA samples from me. Lacking that, no way.