NationStates Jolt Archive

Full Article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008704869_dna04m0.html

"It is good technology. It solves crimes," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, which has long pushed for DNA tests at the time of arrest. "We take fingerprints at the time of arrest, which in many ways is a lot more intrusive."

This is true. Crimes are routinely solved using DNA. Washington is in the news because they're testing arrestees rather than convicts, but unless an arrestee is incidentally guilty of another crime, they aren't harmed in any way by this. I say: let it continue.

The article gives this objection, which is confusing:

"DNA samples reveal the most personal, private information about a person's physical and mental makeup," King said. "It is terribly unfair to an arrestee."

What "private" information is given up by DNA testing? Are they afraid that the FBI is going to get bored one day and pay for a complete genome sequencing on a criminal and have laughs at how silly his or her DNA is? "Hey, look! This guy's got brown hair, but one of his parents had red hair! Let's gather around and mock him!" Unlikely.

My point is: every incoming arrestee needs to be DNA tested in order to improve the FBI database.

Test everyone they arrest. No reason not to, just like fingerprinting.

"Hey, look! This guy's got brown hair, but one of his parents had red hair! Let's gather around and mock him!"

You don't realize how close to home that hits. :(

For one, it is YOUR genetic make-up. That's a part of you.

It's much easier to plant DNA at the scene of a crime than it is a fingerprint.

So every drunk driver should be forced to give up their DNA, even though they aren't a criminal and most likely wouldn't be committing major crimes? That's bullshit.

I wouldn't mind it, as long as the arrested person's DNA is removed from the system when they are cleared of their charges.

Also, it shouldn't be done for misdemeanors - only felonies.

Charged with the crime? Yes. Which isn't that hard to do anyway. That's what warrants are for. ANyone charged with a crime and/or served a warrant should be DNA tested.

If it's not too expensive to implement, then yes.

For one, it is YOUR genetic make-up. That's a part of you.

It's much easier to plant DNA at the scene of a crime than it is a fingerprint.

So every drunk driver should be forced to give up their DNA, even though they aren't a criminal and most likely wouldn't be committing major crimes? That's bullshit.

DNA isn't "me". It's a description of me. It doesn't hurt me for someone to know what I look like.

DNA is gathered by swabbing the mouth. How do you plant that at a crime scene? An old Q-tip sitting next to a body won't do to frame a person, even if your paranoia made sense.

And drunk drivers are criminals, so no exceptions for them. They risk killing people every time they drive drunk.

DNA isn't "me". It's a description of me. It doesn't hurt me for someone to know what I look like.

Still a part of you. Where do you think it comes from?

DNA is gathered by swabbing the mouth. How do you plant that at a crime scene? An old Q-tip sitting next to a body won't do to frame a person, even if your paranoia made sense.

So say your DNA is on record. Someone commits a crime and plants your hair at the scene, thus putting you at the scene of a crime you didn't commit. Good luck fighting that one. DNA is the best evidence you can get.

And drunk drivers are criminals, so no exceptions for them. They risk killing people every time they drive drunk.

But sometimes they don't. They aren't criminals if no one is dead. Why should they be treated like one?

I don't want to hear it would be too expensive. Let the people at fault pay for it. Too many people get a way with lying and cheating the system, with DNA it would be harder.

I don't want to hear it would be too expensive. Let the people at fault pay for it. Too many people get a way with lying and cheating the system, with DNA it would be harder.

And how exactly would it be harder to "lie and cheat the system" by having DNA on record?

Absolutely not.

One can make a case for DNA testing all convicts, but all arrestees? Heck no.

But sometimes they don't. They aren't criminals if no one is dead. Why should they be treated like one?

Because for one, there's a high chance they'll do it again, and secondly they're already placing other people in unacceptable harm even if nothing comes of it. The possibility is there and is sufficiently high to make it justifiable to treat all drunk drivers as criminals.

Now, I do think the strict BAC measures aren't the best way to go about it; the level of actual impairment is what should matter in that situation.

Still a part of you. Where do you think it comes from?

So say your DNA is on record. Someone commits a crime and plants your hair at the scene, thus putting you at the scene of a crime you didn't commit. Good luck fighting that one. DNA is the best evidence you can get.

But sometimes they don't. They aren't criminals if no one is dead. Why should they be treated like one?

Again, a description of me isn't me. The tiny amount of saliva taken on a swab is resonable given the importance of solving crimes. I can't imagine where your paranoia is coming from, but the police aren't going to frame you. There are crimes beyond murder, so "they aren't criminals if no one is dead" is nonsense.

They aren't criminals if no one is dead. Why should they be treated like one?

Um, yes, they are. DUI is a crime.

That said, plenty of people who get arrested for anything are NOT criminals. A huge number of arrested people are never so much as charged, let alone convicted.

Because for one, there's a high chance they'll do it again, and secondly they're already placing other people in unacceptable harm even if nothing comes of it. The possibility is there and is sufficiently high to make it justifiable to treat all drunk drivers as criminals.

Now, I do think the strict BAC measures aren't the best way to go about it; the level of actual impairment is what should matter in that situation.

Yeah, I agree with the BAC stuff.

I don't want to get too off topic though. I just find that treating drunk drivers like convicts is the same as treating drug users like convicts. It's a waste of time and money.

Like I said though, that's for another thread.

You don't realize how close to home that hits. :(
Some of us think ginger is sexy.

Um, yes, they are. DUI is a crime.

That said, plenty of people who get arrested for anything are NOT criminals. A huge number of arrested people are never so much as charged, let alone convicted.

That's true. But having your DNA on file is harmless if you haven't committed any crimes, so even if nothing comes from testing an innocent arrestee, there hasn't been any harm done.

That's true. But having your DNA on file is harmless if you haven't committed any crimes, so even if nothing comes from testing an innocent arrestee, there hasn't been any harm done.

I love this line of thought. It's very Orwellian.

I wouldn't mind it, as long as the arrested person's DNA is removed from the system when they are cleared of their charges.

Also, it shouldn't be done for misdemeanors - only felonies.

Then why not wait for them to be found guilty?

I love this line of thought. It's very Orwellian.

Only in its simplicity. Sometimes simple solutions work.

Then why not wait for them to be found guilty?

That's preferable, actually.

That's true. But having your DNA on file is harmless if you haven't committed any crimes, so even if nothing comes from testing an innocent arrestee, there hasn't been any harm done.

Out of curiosity, is having the police invite themselves into your home whenever they like "harmless" if they won't find anything illegal?

Whatever records is there can be destroyed. What I mean is, DNA can be used to solve the disputes and crimes.

Ex: Small person says big person caused physical damage. After DNA testing it is found out that the wounds of the small person were self inflicted. Case in point, almost every minor assault case does not go thru DNA testing.

Again, a description of me isn't me.

Where exactly do you think this "description of you" comes from? It's part of your body maybe?

The tiny amount of saliva taken on a swab is resonable given the importance of solving crimes. I can't imagine where your paranoia is coming from, but the police aren't going to frame you.

My "paranoia" is common sense. Anyone could get a hold of your DNA and plant it at the scene of a crime in order to frame you. I made no mention of police.

There are crimes beyond murder, so "they aren't criminals if no one is dead" is nonsense.

So it makes sense to treat a good upstanding citizen that messed up once on the same level as a hardened criminal such as a rapist/murderer?

It would make sense to have DNA on file for a rapist, since it's likely the rapist would strike again. But waste the time on a drunk driver? Get real.

Only in its simplicity. Sometimes simple solutions work.

Nah, it's the same old thing:

"Having your picture on file is harmless if you haven't done anything."
"Having your fingerprints on file is harmless..."
"Having cameras in all public places is harmless..."
"Having your DNA on file is harmless..."
"Having all phone conversations listened in to is harmless..."
"Having all internet transactions monitored is harmless..."
"Having cameras and microphones in your homes is harmless..."

Out of curiosity, is having the police invite themselves into your home whenever they like "harmless" if they won't find anything illegal?

The difference is probable cause. If you're arrested rightfully, the police will have had it. If they don't, there's a remedy: you can sue for wrongful arrest. The police can't search your home without probable cause unless you're a parolee, and that's how it should be.

I don't agree. I think if there is a compelling need for DNA the police can get a warrant, otherwise no, they don't need it and it's wrong to take it.

The difference is probable cause. If you're arrested rightfully, the police will have had it. If they don't, there's a remedy: you can sue for wrongful arrest. The police can't search your home without probable cause unless you're a parolee, and that's how it should be.

So what about being arrested for, say, shoplifting a candy bar (which it will later turn out I paid for and the clerk just forgot to ring it up, so I won't be charged with anything) gives the police probable cause to inspect my DNA to see if I might be a murderer or rapist?

Where exactly do you think this "description of you" comes from? It's part of your body maybe?

My "paranoia" is common sense. Anyone could get a hold of your DNA and plant it at the scene of a crime in order to frame you. I made no mention of police.

So it makes sense to treat a good upstanding citizen that messed up once on the same level as a hardened criminal such as a rapist/murderer?

It would make sense to have DNA on file for a rapist, since it's likely the rapist would strike again. But waste the time on a drunk driver? Get real.

We fingerprint both serious criminals and petty criminals, treating them the same, because they may be guilty of other things. No one complains about that. DNA accomplishes the same thing. Serious criminals, especially gang members, commit minor crimes all the time. That's why police take small-time criminal activity seriously. It's because they get results. DNA is the best way we have to identify criminals. It sounds like you'd eliminate it because it's too effective.

It make sense for "some" crimes especially violent or sexual in nature. Do we really need DNA from a shoplifter?

Nah, it's the same old thing:

"Having your picture on file is harmless if you haven't done anything."
"Having your fingerprints on file is harmless..."
"Having cameras in all public places is harmless..."
"Having your DNA on file is harmless..."
"Having all phone conversations listened in to is harmless..."
"Having all internet transactions monitored is harmless..."
"Having cameras and microphones in your homes is harmless..."

You're assuming a non-existent slippery slope. DNA is used to describe, not to monitor a person's activity. It's no different than fingerprinting, and is easier to obtain.

Nah, it's the same old thing:

"Having your picture on file is harmless if you haven't done anything."
"Having your fingerprints on file is harmless..."
"Having cameras in all public places is harmless..."
"Having your DNA on file is harmless..."
"Having all phone conversations listened in to is harmless..."
"Having all internet transactions monitored is harmless..."
"Having cameras and microphones in your homes is harmless..."

Well said. Giving up your privacy is harmless as well I guess.

Not only that surrendering it for no reason at all.

It make sense for "some" crimes especially violent or sexual in nature. Do we really need DNA from a shoplifter?

I know it's counter-intuitive, but yes. "Real" criminals really do commit minor crimes like shoplifting. Many times, shoplifting provides the income a junkie need to keep himself supplied with drugs, for example. He may also have stolen cars or killed for money at other times. It's what they call the "broken windows" theory of enforcement. Criminals commit crimes of all types.

You're assuming a non-existent slippery slope. DNA is used to describe, not to monitor a person's activity. It's no different than fingerprinting, and is easier to obtain.

Harder to cross-reference, and more expensive, though, requiring greater processing power. In any case, fingerprints take special tools to transfer and plant in a crime scene, as opposed to DNA where someone just has to find your hairbrush.

We fingerprint both serious criminals and petty criminals, treating them the same, because they may be guilty of other things. No one complains about that. DNA accomplishes the same thing. Serious criminals, especially gang members, commit minor crimes all the time. That's why police take small-time criminal activity seriously. It's because they get results. DNA is the best way we have to identify criminals. It sounds like you'd eliminate it because it's too effective.

Um, I've heard more than a few people complain about the practice of fingerprinting as it currently exists. That said, DNA is NOT the same thing, and those of us who think DNA tests on people who haven't even been charged with crimes are inappropriate are not saying so because it is "too effective" but generally because of this:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Demanding some of your cells for no particular reason other than "um, you might have done something bad!" nudges far, far too close to "unreasonable search or seizure" of one's person for my taste.

We fingerprint both serious criminals and petty criminals, treating them the same, because they may be guilty of other things. No one complains about that. DNA accomplishes the same thing.

Alright, you aren't paying attention. It's much easier to plant DNA at the scene of a crime than it is a fingerprint. That fact in itself makes DNA worse for placing a person at the scene of the crime in some cases.

Serious criminals, especially gang members, commit minor crimes all the time. That's why police take small-time criminal activity seriously. It's because they get results.

What? What does that have to do with having DNA on file?

DNA is the best way we have to identify criminals. It sounds like you'd eliminate it because it's too effective.

Again, what? Did I not just say it would be good for rapists and criminals of that nature?

I really don't see what the problem is. DNA is not like a chip they put on you, it is already there. Don't want it on file, fine but we still can use it to find the guilty party of every problem. Then that guilty party will have to pay for the test. You accuse me of something and I was innocent, then you pay for it.

No more I believe him/her and you are going to jail. No more cops saying, "this is not CSI Miami buddy, we don't do DNA for minor crimes" after you request one because you think you are innocent. No more trying to make you say what you haven't done so that they can close the case without looking stupid, and the list goes on.

Take it and check to see that the person detained is not wanted for any crimes. Once the case has gone to court destroy the dna file on the detainees who were not found guilty.

Um, I've heard more than a few people complain about the practice of fingerprinting as it currently exists. That said, DNA is NOT the same thing, and those of us who think DNA tests on people who haven't even been charged with crimes are inappropriate are not saying so because it is "too effective" but generally because of this:

Demanding some of your cells for no particular reason other than "um, you might have done something bad!" nudges far, far too close to "unreasonable search or seizure" of one's person for my taste.

Judges and juries get to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. I understand where you're coming from, but I think that the average person will look at the value of crime prevention, compared with the possible inconvenience of swabbing the mouth of an arrestee, and conclude that it's not an unreasonable measure to take.

Alright, you aren't paying attention. It's much easier to plant DNA at the scene of a crime than it is a fingerprint. That fact in itself makes DNA worse for placing a person at the scene of the crime in some cases.

I was responding to someone else's point about WHO to test. Don't tell me I'm not 'paying attention' to yours when I'm talking to someone else. The fact that a person can be framed means we ought to investigate exhaustively, not abandon effective technology.

Judges and juries get to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. I understand where you're coming from, but I think that the average person will look at the value of crime prevention, compared with the possible inconvenience of swabbing the mouth of an arrestee, and conclude that it's not an unreasonable measure to take.

So following this line of thought, do you think that EVERYONE should be forced to give up their DNA in the name of crime prevention?

I was responding to someone else's point about WHO to test. Don't tell me I'm not 'paying attention' to yours when I'm talking to someone else. The fact that a person can be framed means we ought to investigate exhaustively, not abandon effective technology.

Oh so you quoted me because you weren't responding to me? How silly of me.:rolleyes:

So you really think that detectives would go through the trouble of investigating exhaustively even though the evidence is already there? Yeah, right.

So following this line of thought, do you think that EVERYONE should be forced to give up their DNA in the name of crime prevention?

That's more likely to be considered unreasonable. I think it's reasonable to record convicted criminals' DNA, and probably reasonable to record arrestees' DNA, but beyond that I'm not sure. I'll yield to expert opinion on that.

Judges and juries get to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable. I understand where you're coming from, but I think that the average person will look at the value of crime prevention, compared with the possible inconvenience of swabbing the mouth of an arrestee, and conclude that it's not an unreasonable measure to take.

What judges and juries? How are judges and juries involved in whether or not the police can force someone who's been arrested - not charged or convicted - to give them a DNA sample?

And frankly, I don't care what the average person will conclude. The average person in many states seems to have concluded that gay marriage is icky-poo and needs to be legally banned, but that doesn't make those bans any more constitutionally valid.

(And again, it's not about "inconvenience." The police are allowed to "inconvenience" me in a variety of ways, and I have no objection to those. It's about whether it erodes or outright violates my constitutional rights.)

Oh so you quoted me because you weren't responding to me? How silly of me.:rolleyes:

So you really think that detectives would go through the trouble of investigating exhaustively even though the evidence is already there? Yeah, right.

DNA is not an automatic conviction in real life like it is on t.v. DNA doesn't mean the end of an investigation, especially if the facts don't fit the physical evidence.

That's more likely to be considered unreasonable.

But it's not unreasonable to collect arrestees DNA, even though they are innocent? In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to be anyway.

I think it's reasonable to record convicted criminals' DNA, and probably reasonable to record arrestees' DNA, but beyond that I'm not sure. I'll yield to expert opinion on that.

So you go from saying let the police continue collecting arrestees' DNA to saying it's "probably reasonable" to do so? Choose one.

What judges and juries? How are judges and juries involved in whether or not the police can force someone who's been arrested - not charged or convicted - to give them a DNA sample?

And frankly, I don't care what the average person will conclude. The average person in many states seems to have concluded that gay marriage is icky-poo and needs to be legally banned, but that doesn't make those bans any more constitutionally valid.

(And again, it's not about "inconvenience." The police are allowed to "inconvenience" me in a variety of ways, and I have no objection to those. It's about whether it erodes or outright violates my constitutional rights.)

You're talking about the constitution. Judges have a say in deciding what is constitutional. Juries have a say in judging police conduct.

DNA is not an automatic conviction in real life like it is on t.v. DNA doesn't mean the end of an investigation, especially if the facts don't fit the physical evidence.

So why bother to have it on file then?

But it's not unreasonable to collect arrestees DNA, even though they are innocent? In this country, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to be anyway.

So you go from saying let the police continue collecting arrestees' DNA to saying it's "probably reasonable" to do so? Choose one.

"Probably" here is a degree of certainty. I use it because I'm not an expert on the law, not because I'm not ethically in favor of testing.

So why bother to have it on file then?

Because it's very, very helpful in investigating crimes, even if it isn't sometimes.

You're talking about the constitution. Judges have a say in deciding what is constitutional. Juries have a say in judging police conduct.

...so your point is "stop discussing whether you believe it is constitutional"? Or what? :confused:

...so your point is "stop discussing whether you believe it is constitutional"? Or what? :confused:

The Constitution might have us ask whether taking a DNA swab is resonable. That's an important question, and I predicted that judges/juries will decide, if asked to, that it is a reasonable practice. If you weigh the benefits in preventing crimes against the imposition on the criminal, you get a clear answer in favor of swabbing, I think.

Nobody is taking my saliva! Ok I am kidding, but I really think it would help even if nothing can be proven with it, that usually says something about the case.

The Constitution might have us ask whether taking a DNA swab is resonable. That's an important question, and I predicted that judges/juries will decide, if asked to, that it is a reasonable practice. If you weigh the benefits in preventing crimes against the imposition on the criminal, you get a clear answer in favor of swabbing, I think.

The imposition on the CRIMINAL?

Good heavens, are we to repeal half the Bill of Rights and decide that there is now no presumption of innocence before conviction as well?

Further, I don't think you quite understand how constitutional law works. It kinda involves, y'know, obeying the constitution, and not a judge or jury's personal cost/benefit analysis.

I dont see why not...If you are innocent, your DNA shouldnt be in the Scene of the Crime, no?

The imposition on the CRIMINAL?

Good heavens, are we to repeal half the Bill of Rights and decide that there is now no presumption of innocence before conviction as well?

Further, I don't think you quite understand how constitutional law works. It kinda involves, y'know, obeying the constitution, and not a judge or jury's personal cost/benefit analysis.

Easy on the snark, cowboy. You know what I meant. :wink:

Why not? They take your fingerprints for less. It's just another means of verifying your identity and checking to see if you're involved in any other crimes.

Easy on the snark, cowboy. You know what I meant. :wink:

I'm a cowboy now? Awesome! I didn't even know I was a boy! ;)

And I had a hunch as to what you meant, but the very fact that you could confuse "arrestee" and "criminal" is worrying. It's an exceedingly important distinction, and very much the crux of my argument.

Some of us think ginger is sexy.

I never said I was the ginger one. ;)

Because for one, there's a high chance they'll do it again
Statistically, this information is incorrect.

no, if no conviction is made, then no DNA should be taken

That's true. But having your DNA on file is harmless if you haven't committed any crimes, so even if nothing comes from testing an innocent arrestee, there hasn't been any harm done.

Searching my house is also harmless, if there's no evidence of a crime in it. Doesn't mean I'm about to let them without a warrant.

I dont see why not...If you are innocent, your DNA shouldnt be in the Scene of the Crime, no?

But what if you're innocent and it is at the scene of the crime? Like I said before, it's a lot easier to plant DNA than it is to plant a fingerprint.

So every drunk driver should be forced to give up their DNA, even though they aren't a criminal
You should be shot ffs

You should be shot ffs

Should I? What a wonderful rebuttal. Apparently you didn't bother to read to page 2.

Absolutely not.

One can make a case for DNA testing all convicts, but all arrestees? Heck no.

If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried, right? It's not like this could ever be open to abuse by officers of the law who, say, manage to find one reason or another to arrest every minority that crosses their path. I mean, we certainly don't see any bias or injustice in prosecution and sentencing, so why would we see it in arrests?

If you having nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried, right? It's not like this could ever be open to abuse by officers of the law who, say, manage to find one reason or another to arrest every minority that crosses their path. I mean, we certainly don't see any bias or injustice in prosecution and sentencing, so why would we see it in arrests?

This made me lol.

Twas good. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I dont see why not...If you are innocent, your DNA shouldnt be in the Scene of the Crime, no?

Oh sweet zombie jesus. REALLY? So if my coworkers don't murder me, but I end up dead in my classroom, their DNA shouldn't be near the crime scene, even though they come into my room EVERY DAY?

All that presence of DNA means is that the person, at some stage, touched the object or entered the room.

This is exactly what a fingerprint presence means. Since the latter is taken from all arrestees, I see no problem with the former.

You're assuming a non-existent slippery slope. DNA is used to describe, not to monitor a person's activity. It's no different than fingerprinting, and is easier to obtain.
What's wrong with having a camera permanently implanted near your eye and monitored by the police? If you're doing nothing criminal, you have nothing to fear.

DNA isn't "me". It's a description of me. It doesn't hurt me for someone to know what I look like.

DNA is gathered by swabbing the mouth. How do you plant that at a crime scene? An old Q-tip sitting next to a body won't do to frame a person, even if your paranoia made sense.

And drunk drivers are criminals, so no exceptions for them. They risk killing people every time they drive drunk.
Might hurt if you had an inherent genetic diseases . . .Also its a really good way to track peoples movement. . .gets a little to easy to implement some sort of police state for my liking.

watch the movie gattaca to see how DNA info can go too far. and how fake DNA info can be used.

But sometimes they don't. They aren't criminals if no one is dead. Why should they be treated like one?

That's not a very good statement. They are a criminal whether or not someone gets hurt; and while it shouldn't be a felony it should certainly be treated harsher than it is.

I think they should have mandatory DNA testing for all felons.

(oh that and there is an error on genetic testing. Its possible to get a false positive so relying solely on DNA evidence is sketchy at best)