They're already collecting finger prints for the same reason. If it helps in solving crimes and prevents any innocent convictions, then I have nothing to fear.
I think if something were to ever happen to me or a loved one (murder,robbery,rape, abducted, etc.)...I would want any and every thing done to find the criminal! Do what ever it takes! If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about!
Big Brother is proud of everyone who posts intimate details of their daily lives on data mining disguised as social media sites. Facebook alone accounts for close to half the US population as of Sept 2012. With 175-ish million people freely giving up their personal information to Governments as well as the corporations who seek to profit from it, the collection of mere fingerprints and DNA from, comparatively speaking, a few people who get arrested should be the least of our concerns.
For those arrested from crimes, making and retaining basic identifying information such as mug shots and finger prints seems sensible and not a violation of anybody's due process or right to unreasonable search and seizure.
If all DNA was was identifying information it might fall into the same category.
But from DNA the government can find out an awful lot about you, stuff that potentially goes beyond the government's right to know, need to know and the scope of fighting crime.
It seems there should be some due process involved to take and retain DNA.
From a single social security number the Government and Corporations can find out an awful lot about you. Perhaps there ought to be some due process involved for that too, no?
"I am innocent, so I have nothing to worry about..."
Yes indeed... The above statement is EXACTLY what those who would take your liberties want to hear! They LOVE this particular bit of ignorance:
The German Jews said much the same thing in the 1930's, not to mention the hundreds of millions of other "innocent" people who were summarily executed over the last century, as tyrants took over their countries.
Just like, when during a routine traffic stop, a police officer asks me if he can search through my car. I always say "I do NOT consent to any searches." Invariably, they say that if I have nothing to hide, why don't I let them search it? It has NOTHING to do with any guilt or innocence. It is about my RIGHT to be secure against arbitrary searches. This 'right' is NOT granted to me by any government... It comes from GOD, and the American government can NOT take it without due process. Those who think that it's no problem, are part of the reason our freedom is disappearing... The first two comments are perfect examples of why the Republic of America is almost dead...
Maybe.... maybe OK if that DNA info that was collected at arrest is disposed of if charges are dropped or if you are found not guilty. And I'll go so far as to say I think fingerprints collected at arrest should be disposed of if charges are dropped or you are found not guilty. If you didn't do anything illegal why should the gov't be keeping that info?
DNA contains MUCH more information than fingerprints. It is a blueprint into us. A government bent on creating a universal health care system is most definitely one that should NOT have access to our genetic markers. Eventually that genetic data will be used to regulate "who" gets to do "what" and how much it will cost them (read taxes) based on their genetic history.
Bob, providing your data to facebook is 100% voluntary. If you want to give your DNA to the gov't to prevent you from being incorrectly fingered in a crime I say "go for it". But the gov't has no business collecting that much information about us and our genetic makeuo without a warrant and due process.
I think some of you are a bit paranoid. First since I dont commit crimes I dont really care one way or another. But I guess my real question is, what liberties are exactly being violated by the taking of DNA. I mean it can tell you if you have the gene for certain diseases or it can be typed to find out what region of the world your ancestors are from or what your hair and eye color should be. But what privacy rights does it really infringe on. Plus they arent talking about collecting EVERYONES DNA just those arrested for crimes.
I do see this as giving up any liberties or rights and it's just not that simple getting such info from DNA.
Otherwise all children who's biological parentage is unknown, like adoptees, or abandoned children. Wouldn't have to face life not knowing what they might be genetically susceptible to, like heart disease, diabetes or other such diseases that carry genetic markers. They could just get their DNA profiled and alter their lifestyle according to pre-disposed risk. Are children given due process when their parents have them fingerprinted....just in case they are abducted?
I think this is just an overblown reaction to a non issue. Read up on what exactly DNA tells about you....
Genetics is rarely all or nothing. In almost every case your version of a gene will give you an increased or a lowered chance of a particular outcome (like becoming obese) but that outcome is not certain. Your other genes and environmental influences, such as how much you eat and exercise, all work together to determine how you end up.
Sex
The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female. Apart from some very rare cases, that doesn't even involve looking at their DNA sequence - all you need to know is whether they have X and Y chromosomes (making them male) or a pair of Xs (which makes them female). A foetus will, by default, develop as female unless the SRY gene on the Y chromosome is turned on.
Hair colour
Many redheads have a different version of a gene that prevents pigment-producing cells called melanocytes responding to a hormone that instructs them to make dark pigment. A DNA sample from someone carrying two of the mutated genes has a 96% probability of being naturally red-haired. A DNA test developed by the Forensic Science Service can identify eight common mutations of this gene that have the same effect of stopping it from working.
Eye colour
At least four genes work together to determine your eye colour. By analysing these genes scientists can classify someone into one of three eye-colour groups - light (blue and grey), dark (black and brown), or hazel - with 97% certainty.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
This condition has been linked with a genetic stutter in the gene DAT1 which is involved in nerve impulses.
Body clock
The Per2 gene has been linked with "advanced sleep phase syndrome" (wanting to go to bed early and rise in the small hours). Another gene, Per3, is found more often in night owls.
Long life
Particular versions of the Klotho gene are associated with longevity in humans. It seems to influence age-related conditions such as heart disease and stroke.
Thrill seeking
Certain versions of a gene on the X chromosome that codes for the monoamine oxidase enzyme (MAO), are associated with the sensation-seeking and impulsive tendencies.
Obesity
Around half of the UK population carry a variant of the FTO gene, which makes them on average 1.6kg heavier than those who do not have it. Some 16% of the population carry two copies of the gene and are, on average, 3kg heavier. People with the FTO variant also have an increased risk of diabetes.
Diseases
Huntington's
Huntington's disease, the devastating neurological disorder, is found in about one in 10,000 people of western European descent. It is caused by a mutation in the Huntington gene. Only one of your two copies needs to be defective for you to develop the disease.
Breast cancer
Up to 80% of women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes will develop breast cancer.
Familial adenomatous polyposis
This is an inherited form of bowel cancer that is caused by a variety of mutations to the APC gene.
Cystic fibrosis
Around one in 25 of the UK population carry one faulty copy of the gene that causes the disease. Two carrier parents have a one in four chance of producing a child with the disease - only those with two faulty copies develop symptoms.
How DNA can solve crimes
Matching a DNA sample (say from a blood or semen stain) from a crime scene to the perpetrator relies on regions of DNA in between genes that have lots of variability. The technique involves snipping up the DNA using enzymes called restriction endonucleases, which cut the DNA only when they come across a specific sequence. If everyone's DNA were the same then the pieces left after this frenzy of molecular slicing would all be the same length. But there are repeated sections of DNA that vary considerably between individuals. That means the lengths of my cut fragments are unlikely to be the same as your cut fragments (because we have a different number of repeats).
By combining several of these variable locations in the genome, scientists can say with very high confidence that a match between a DNA profile found at a crime scene and the profile of a suspect are not the same simply by chance. The probability of two unrelated people having the same profile coincidentally depends on how many variable DNA regions you use, but it is typically one in several billion.
Big brother and giving up liberty or rights just seems a non-argument at best.
Arrest does not equal guilt. Any one of us could be arrested if we look like someone the police is looking at the time, or we happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It isn't uncommon for police to book folks and sort it out later. If I am released, I want my DNA data released with me. Like I said earlier, I feel the same way about fingerprints and mugshots too. If I am deemed not a criminal I see no compelling reason for the gov't to keep that data.
Prior to the advent of DNA, if you got arrested, your finger prints are filed as well as your mug shot, regardless of conviction or exoneration. The same holds true for DNA, if you get arrested it is essentially a fingerprint or a mug shot. So yes, this was a good decision by the courts in my opinion.
If you enlist in the Armed Forces these days, guess what, you give a DNA sample. As far as the possibility of DNA testing for everyone, well that would be another story.
When you get a nurse's license, you are fingerprinted, those prints are not just kept on file, the go into the national data base, as well as many other professions.
I would never suggest that everyone submit DNA samples as a pre-requisite for employment, yet fingerprints and mug shots are in fact pre-requisites in many professions. Likewise, I would see it an infringement to seek DNA testing for employment, but not as part of a booking procedure following an arrest.
Mark, your other examples are voluntary. This is compulsory regardless of your guilt or innocence. I find it troubling and see no need to pile further onto other bad examples.
To the people that believe it's OK for the (authorities??) to take 'warrantless' DNA samples: Think about this - To get a warrant, the cops are supposed to have some (reasonable cause) for the warrant, so they can get a judge to sign it. Believe it or not, some (respectable) judges WILL NOT sign it just because the cop has a 'good hunch'.
Picture this scenario: Your spouse died just 6-months ago. You were married for 42 years, and in your whole ADULT life, no one (not even your parents) had ever seen you naked. Except for your spouse. You loved each other more than anyone thought possible, and, during those 42 years, had taken thousands of pictures of each other. Pictures at the zoo. And at the beach. Pictures at the amusement park. And, yes, even pictures of each other, completely naked. To you, they aren't 'lewd' pictures. They are 'cherished memories' of your LOVE for one another. You have pictures all over your house, but the 'naked' ones are in your bedroom.
So today, two big, burly cops come to your door. They are investigating a stolen lawn mower from 3 houses down. They'd like to come in to look around, just to 'eliminate' you as a suspect.
Do you say, "Well, I didn't steal it, so, sure, come in and look around"? Or, do you ask if they have a warrant?
"Well, no, Mrs. Jones, we don't have a warrant, but if you had nothing to do with the theft, then it shouldn't be a problem if we just look around. But we could get a warrant, if that's what you'd prefer. We can just sit in our car out front, waste our time and your time, call the warrant in, and have it here in half-an-hour or so."
What do you do? Tell them to get a warrant (and take down the naked pictures from the bedroom walls, while you're waiting)?
Or do you say, "You can come in, but you can't look in my bedroom, 'cause there's things in there I don't want you to see"? -- Which is only gonna raise their suspicions.
Warrantless searches should never be allowed. NEVER!!
On the converse side, several convicted individuals have been exonerated in recent years because DNA taken at the arrest of another showed that they committed the crime, not the person convicted initially.
It cuts both ways, I agree with John Roach however, that DNA samples should be destroyed shortly after a person is found not guilty.
But the collection of DNA at booking not only convicts people, it also clears people potentially that otherwise may have been between the rock and a hard place. It mitigates the notoriously unreliable eye witness.
I agree with sampling at arrest, not maintaining after a verdict of innocence, that said, it would require an act of congress to mandate destruction of DNA after such a verdict, and that I am entirely in support of.
The criminal justice system uses a DNA fingerprint which is a pattern left behind after DNA's component parts have been broken down. This destroys the sample material. What the police are keeping is the records of these patterns not the DNA itself. The money that Police have to spend on this make it cost prohibitive to actually test every arrested individual. Only those accused of amjor crimes or violent crimes are tested. As for the other info contained in your dna that requires much more involved and expensive process that is almost impossible for an agency of the Govt to afford unless it's involved with multi million dollar research.
You guys are lumping both types into a generalized DNA TEST definition which isnt very accurate. The only thing dna tests that police do for ID is id the specific sample with a bar code like result. The only side info that is readable from this type of test is familial relationships. They can tell if children have th same father or if a child is a son or nephew and so on because of placement of certain bars on the test results.
So again the paranoia is kinda rampant here... if you want to educate yourself a little heres a link to begin with.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200713/. The dna database is called CODIS and has been around since 1994 it has dna results from crime scenes in one half. And dna from people arrested for Rape, murder, and other violent crimes on the other.
your dna is you...it is your soul.....if you wish to give yours up, you go right ahead...I will never give mine...ever......so all you yes voters,go to the state police station and give them a saliva swab......after all, you don't have anything to fear..and you voted for it.....sheep
this country has been floating in the toilet since the black robes made corporations into people, yesterday when they took away your right to privacy and compared dna to a photograph, they flushed it......god help us all.....
Yeah people used to believe that your photo was your soul too David. Once again you post BS they arent asking for every one to submit. Believe me if you are arrested for something substantial you wont have a choice. And by the way they compared dna to fingerprinting not just photos. I guess ignorance is very blissful anymore is it David?
Also as it was mentioned earlier, there are different types of arrests. An appearance ticket is considered a form of arrest. To formally be arrested for an alleged crime they have to have some sort of reason that can be presented to a judge to issue authorize it and issue a warrant, take Mike's example of you look like someone the police are looking at for a crime, before you arrested they have to take a witness description to a judge and have an arrest warrant issued. Even scofflaws for speeding tickets and parking tickets have to have a warrant issued by a judge. So theres your warrant. They could make an arrest warrant cover a DNA collection for ID.
In the case cited for Howard's poll. I believe that this tool could get alot more bad people off the street, solve alot more crimes that ordinarily go cold. Look at our local...our DA went ahead of the curve and prosecuted a dna profile so that a burglary wouldn't get away with his crime because of the statuate of limitations.
As for the DNA test itself you guys are really not making the distinction between DNA id tests and Medical DNA screening. Since we like the photo comparison lets use this metaphor for both the complexity and cost.
a dna id is like a b/w photograph in cost and ease of developing. Whereas a medical dna screening to determine health risks and other such detailed info that people believe would violate their rights is like the most expensive cat or mri scan both in cost and comlexity. IMHO even the Govt would find it prohibitive to do such not just cause of the costs but the need to involve specialists to interpret the data as well. Like someone pointed out maybe in the future when technology makes handling dna much more cost effective and smooth there would be a concern but as of now or the next 20 to 40 yrs, not very likely.
Which rights am I giving up David....please enlighten me. For all your defiant rhetoric I'd be willing to bet if the State showed up on your doorstep to collect your guns or to arrest you you'd step right aside and comply with every command given people like you who talk like this in cyber forums always do....
Like everything else, give up just one more piece of freedom, and think there is something good about it.
Steal my rights today, maybe yours tomorrow. I am always against
any invasive action by the police state we call the USA.
What's next, random lie detector tests so we can be sure everyone is honest, please, enough govt. intrusion.
By the way, I have nothing to hide or fear, with the exception of giving up personal freedoms.
I have seen first hand how fast freedom goes out the window when you end up in a court of law, coercion, threats, orders of protection written illegally, etc.etc.! Been there, done that.
I still see no answer to the question however, what rights are being given up by this. Just look at the comments here everyday, we ourselves take away rights, we judge, we find people guilty untils proven innocent, we see our local leaders push us around and deny our rights but we still elect/reelect them. We see groups steal our money from our pockets to line their own. But all thats ok.
But say your gonna take an id profile from someone who has been arrested and more than likely guilty of the crime and its a violation of our rights. How about the rights to see your relative's killer or rapist brought at least to trial. How about the right to own property without some knucklehead taking it from you. All these things could be reduced with dna database of offenders. Especially those who do minimal time then get released back out among us.
Specifically the orders of protection, how effective are they, written illegally or not? How many men women and children who thought they were protected by such a piece of paper still get harassed, beaten, hospitalized or buried despite that sheet of paper. How many times have they heard police say, "Unless we witness the violation then we cant do anything except record your complaint"
So how about straight answers, what rights do you give up having your DNA taken when arrested?
Kyle, I think you have a confused conception of rights.
Passing judgement on somebody, for example, doesn't take away any rights from anybody.
Rights are about freedom -- the right to speak your mind, to publish your opinion, to associate with people of your choosing, to be secure in your person and property -- without undue government intervention in your personal liberty.
There's no right to be free of criticism nor a right to "see your relative's killer or rapist brought at least to trial."
As for this conversation, I find David Spaulding's articulation of his position rather dramatic, but he's essentially right in his position on this topic.
By natural right and by the Bill of Rights, you have a right to be secure in your person and property without undue government intervention. There's nothing more personal than your DNA sequence. The government should not have a copy of that without your consent or a damn good reason based on a strong foundation of due process.
Again I fail to see the infringement on privacy how does the govt having your sequence infringe on the security of your person. As for property rights, I see people spit onto the sidewalk which is a significant amount of dna being just left in the grass or sidewalk or parkinglot. As I read the article you posted with this poll question Howard, the standard for collecting was being arrested for a violent crime. These types of crimes as I pointed out before require the police to aquire enough evidence to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant. The victims of murder DO have a right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, which has been taken away from them by someone, someone that could be discerned by fingerprint or dna. Rape victims have been violated in the most thorough way possible when it comes to the right of being secure in your person or property, burglary victms also in a much lesser degree.
I guess I just dont see where the Govt having your DNA limits your freedom to speak your mind, publish opinions or associate with people you choose to. The guy in Maryland who's case prompted this whole Supreme Court Ruling was arrested for another charge and ended up with more serious charges because he raped somone years ago and left enough biological material to be identified at this late date.
As for Frank B's comment your right I dont care about the rights of others, specifically others who use the freedoms Howard mentioned to deprive others of their rights. I do believe they still have rights to fair trial and such, but I dont believe that it is a right for them to not to be DNA sequenced if they are arrested in suspicion of said serious crime. As has been mentioned in this forum you have a right to do these actions but you dont have a right to avoid the consequences.
Like free speech is free speech but if you excercise it by shouting fire in a crowded theater you still have to face the financial and criminal consequences of having excercised that freedom.
The Govt has your Social Security # and can do a hell of alot more damage to your rights to be secure in your person and property with it. Yet we will give it out willingly to them without a thought or warrant...
Kyle, I get where you're coming from, but again, when it comes to invasive procedures, I will never agree, law enforcement has been known to screw up once in awhile, after all, they are only human.
I don't believe you could be framed for a crime because someone has your SS#.. If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't trust, or have much faith in our entire system of justice. I'm not paranoid, I've just seen
too many examples of misconduct, harassment, favoritism, and the difference between the haves and the have not's.
They're already collecting
They're already collecting finger prints for the same reason. If it helps in solving crimes and prevents any innocent convictions, then I have nothing to fear.
I think if something were to
I think if something were to ever happen to me or a loved one (murder,robbery,rape, abducted, etc.)...I would want any and every thing done to find the criminal! Do what ever it takes! If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about!
Big Brother is proud of both
Big Brother is proud of both of you.
:rolleyes: @ big brother
:rolleyes: @ big brother comment.
Big Brother is proud of everyone who posts intimate details of their daily lives on data mining disguised as social media sites. Facebook alone accounts for close to half the US population as of Sept 2012. With 175-ish million people freely giving up their personal information to Governments as well as the corporations who seek to profit from it, the collection of mere fingerprints and DNA from, comparatively speaking, a few people who get arrested should be the least of our concerns.
Benjamin Franklin wrote
Benjamin Franklin wrote "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
For those arrested from
For those arrested from crimes, making and retaining basic identifying information such as mug shots and finger prints seems sensible and not a violation of anybody's due process or right to unreasonable search and seizure.
If all DNA was was identifying information it might fall into the same category.
But from DNA the government can find out an awful lot about you, stuff that potentially goes beyond the government's right to know, need to know and the scope of fighting crime.
It seems there should be some due process involved to take and retain DNA.
From a single social security
From a single social security number the Government and Corporations can find out an awful lot about you. Perhaps there ought to be some due process involved for that too, no?
The answer to the poll
The answer to the poll question is a resounding
HELL NO!!!!!
"I am innocent, so I have nothing to worry about..."
Yes indeed... The above statement is EXACTLY what those who would take your liberties want to hear! They LOVE this particular bit of ignorance:
The German Jews said much the same thing in the 1930's, not to mention the hundreds of millions of other "innocent" people who were summarily executed over the last century, as tyrants took over their countries.
Just like, when during a routine traffic stop, a police officer asks me if he can search through my car. I always say "I do NOT consent to any searches." Invariably, they say that if I have nothing to hide, why don't I let them search it? It has NOTHING to do with any guilt or innocence. It is about my RIGHT to be secure against arbitrary searches. This 'right' is NOT granted to me by any government... It comes from GOD, and the American government can NOT take it without due process. Those who think that it's no problem, are part of the reason our freedom is disappearing... The first two comments are perfect examples of why the Republic of America is almost dead...
Heck no. Maybe.... maybe OK
Heck no.
Maybe.... maybe OK if that DNA info that was collected at arrest is disposed of if charges are dropped or if you are found not guilty. And I'll go so far as to say I think fingerprints collected at arrest should be disposed of if charges are dropped or you are found not guilty. If you didn't do anything illegal why should the gov't be keeping that info?
DNA contains MUCH more information than fingerprints. It is a blueprint into us. A government bent on creating a universal health care system is most definitely one that should NOT have access to our genetic markers. Eventually that genetic data will be used to regulate "who" gets to do "what" and how much it will cost them (read taxes) based on their genetic history.
Bob, providing your data to
Bob, providing your data to facebook is 100% voluntary. If you want to give your DNA to the gov't to prevent you from being incorrectly fingered in a crime I say "go for it". But the gov't has no business collecting that much information about us and our genetic makeuo without a warrant and due process.
I think some of you are a bit
I think some of you are a bit paranoid. First since I dont commit crimes I dont really care one way or another. But I guess my real question is, what liberties are exactly being violated by the taking of DNA. I mean it can tell you if you have the gene for certain diseases or it can be typed to find out what region of the world your ancestors are from or what your hair and eye color should be. But what privacy rights does it really infringe on. Plus they arent talking about collecting EVERYONES DNA just those arrested for crimes.
I do see this as giving up any liberties or rights and it's just not that simple getting such info from DNA.
Otherwise all children who's biological parentage is unknown, like adoptees, or abandoned children. Wouldn't have to face life not knowing what they might be genetically susceptible to, like heart disease, diabetes or other such diseases that carry genetic markers. They could just get their DNA profiled and alter their lifestyle according to pre-disposed risk. Are children given due process when their parents have them fingerprinted....just in case they are abducted?
I think this is just an overblown reaction to a non issue. Read up on what exactly DNA tells about you....
Genetics is rarely all or nothing. In almost every case your version of a gene will give you an increased or a lowered chance of a particular outcome (like becoming obese) but that outcome is not certain. Your other genes and environmental influences, such as how much you eat and exercise, all work together to determine how you end up.
Sex
The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female. Apart from some very rare cases, that doesn't even involve looking at their DNA sequence - all you need to know is whether they have X and Y chromosomes (making them male) or a pair of Xs (which makes them female). A foetus will, by default, develop as female unless the SRY gene on the Y chromosome is turned on.
Hair colour
Many redheads have a different version of a gene that prevents pigment-producing cells called melanocytes responding to a hormone that instructs them to make dark pigment. A DNA sample from someone carrying two of the mutated genes has a 96% probability of being naturally red-haired. A DNA test developed by the Forensic Science Service can identify eight common mutations of this gene that have the same effect of stopping it from working.
Eye colour
At least four genes work together to determine your eye colour. By analysing these genes scientists can classify someone into one of three eye-colour groups - light (blue and grey), dark (black and brown), or hazel - with 97% certainty.
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
This condition has been linked with a genetic stutter in the gene DAT1 which is involved in nerve impulses.
Body clock
The Per2 gene has been linked with "advanced sleep phase syndrome" (wanting to go to bed early and rise in the small hours). Another gene, Per3, is found more often in night owls.
Long life
Particular versions of the Klotho gene are associated with longevity in humans. It seems to influence age-related conditions such as heart disease and stroke.
Thrill seeking
Certain versions of a gene on the X chromosome that codes for the monoamine oxidase enzyme (MAO), are associated with the sensation-seeking and impulsive tendencies.
Obesity
Around half of the UK population carry a variant of the FTO gene, which makes them on average 1.6kg heavier than those who do not have it. Some 16% of the population carry two copies of the gene and are, on average, 3kg heavier. People with the FTO variant also have an increased risk of diabetes.
Diseases
Huntington's
Huntington's disease, the devastating neurological disorder, is found in about one in 10,000 people of western European descent. It is caused by a mutation in the Huntington gene. Only one of your two copies needs to be defective for you to develop the disease.
Breast cancer
Up to 80% of women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes will develop breast cancer.
Familial adenomatous polyposis
This is an inherited form of bowel cancer that is caused by a variety of mutations to the APC gene.
Cystic fibrosis
Around one in 25 of the UK population carry one faulty copy of the gene that causes the disease. Two carrier parents have a one in four chance of producing a child with the disease - only those with two faulty copies develop symptoms.
How DNA can solve crimes
Matching a DNA sample (say from a blood or semen stain) from a crime scene to the perpetrator relies on regions of DNA in between genes that have lots of variability. The technique involves snipping up the DNA using enzymes called restriction endonucleases, which cut the DNA only when they come across a specific sequence. If everyone's DNA were the same then the pieces left after this frenzy of molecular slicing would all be the same length. But there are repeated sections of DNA that vary considerably between individuals. That means the lengths of my cut fragments are unlikely to be the same as your cut fragments (because we have a different number of repeats).
By combining several of these variable locations in the genome, scientists can say with very high confidence that a match between a DNA profile found at a crime scene and the profile of a suspect are not the same simply by chance. The probability of two unrelated people having the same profile coincidentally depends on how many variable DNA regions you use, but it is typically one in several billion.
Big brother and giving up liberty or rights just seems a non-argument at best.
Kyle, Arrest does not equal
Kyle,
Arrest does not equal guilt. Any one of us could be arrested if we look like someone the police is looking at the time, or we happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. It isn't uncommon for police to book folks and sort it out later. If I am released, I want my DNA data released with me. Like I said earlier, I feel the same way about fingerprints and mugshots too. If I am deemed not a criminal I see no compelling reason for the gov't to keep that data.
Prior to the advent of DNA,
Prior to the advent of DNA, if you got arrested, your finger prints are filed as well as your mug shot, regardless of conviction or exoneration. The same holds true for DNA, if you get arrested it is essentially a fingerprint or a mug shot. So yes, this was a good decision by the courts in my opinion.
If you enlist in the Armed Forces these days, guess what, you give a DNA sample. As far as the possibility of DNA testing for everyone, well that would be another story.
When you get a nurse's license, you are fingerprinted, those prints are not just kept on file, the go into the national data base, as well as many other professions.
I would never suggest that everyone submit DNA samples as a pre-requisite for employment, yet fingerprints and mug shots are in fact pre-requisites in many professions. Likewise, I would see it an infringement to seek DNA testing for employment, but not as part of a booking procedure following an arrest.
Mark, your other examples are
Mark, your other examples are voluntary. This is compulsory regardless of your guilt or innocence. I find it troubling and see no need to pile further onto other bad examples.
The difference between
The difference between fingerprints and DNA is that even if the police shared your prints with other agencies, so what?
But DNA that is shared without your knowing it might prevent you from employment for health reasons or other abuses.
Why not destroy the DNA within 15 days of either not being charged or found innocent?
To the people that believe
To the people that believe it's OK for the (authorities??) to take 'warrantless' DNA samples: Think about this - To get a warrant, the cops are supposed to have some (reasonable cause) for the warrant, so they can get a judge to sign it. Believe it or not, some (respectable) judges WILL NOT sign it just because the cop has a 'good hunch'.
Picture this scenario: Your spouse died just 6-months ago. You were married for 42 years, and in your whole ADULT life, no one (not even your parents) had ever seen you naked. Except for your spouse. You loved each other more than anyone thought possible, and, during those 42 years, had taken thousands of pictures of each other. Pictures at the zoo. And at the beach. Pictures at the amusement park. And, yes, even pictures of each other, completely naked. To you, they aren't 'lewd' pictures. They are 'cherished memories' of your LOVE for one another. You have pictures all over your house, but the 'naked' ones are in your bedroom.
So today, two big, burly cops come to your door. They are investigating a stolen lawn mower from 3 houses down. They'd like to come in to look around, just to 'eliminate' you as a suspect.
Do you say, "Well, I didn't steal it, so, sure, come in and look around"? Or, do you ask if they have a warrant?
"Well, no, Mrs. Jones, we don't have a warrant, but if you had nothing to do with the theft, then it shouldn't be a problem if we just look around. But we could get a warrant, if that's what you'd prefer. We can just sit in our car out front, waste our time and your time, call the warrant in, and have it here in half-an-hour or so."
What do you do? Tell them to get a warrant (and take down the naked pictures from the bedroom walls, while you're waiting)?
Or do you say, "You can come in, but you can't look in my bedroom, 'cause there's things in there I don't want you to see"? -- Which is only gonna raise their suspicions.
Warrantless searches should never be allowed. NEVER!!
On the converse side, several
On the converse side, several convicted individuals have been exonerated in recent years because DNA taken at the arrest of another showed that they committed the crime, not the person convicted initially.
It cuts both ways, I agree with John Roach however, that DNA samples should be destroyed shortly after a person is found not guilty.
But the collection of DNA at booking not only convicts people, it also clears people potentially that otherwise may have been between the rock and a hard place. It mitigates the notoriously unreliable eye witness.
I agree with sampling at arrest, not maintaining after a verdict of innocence, that said, it would require an act of congress to mandate destruction of DNA after such a verdict, and that I am entirely in support of.
The criminal justice system
The criminal justice system uses a DNA fingerprint which is a pattern left behind after DNA's component parts have been broken down. This destroys the sample material. What the police are keeping is the records of these patterns not the DNA itself. The money that Police have to spend on this make it cost prohibitive to actually test every arrested individual. Only those accused of amjor crimes or violent crimes are tested. As for the other info contained in your dna that requires much more involved and expensive process that is almost impossible for an agency of the Govt to afford unless it's involved with multi million dollar research.
You guys are lumping both types into a generalized DNA TEST definition which isnt very accurate. The only thing dna tests that police do for ID is id the specific sample with a bar code like result. The only side info that is readable from this type of test is familial relationships. They can tell if children have th same father or if a child is a son or nephew and so on because of placement of certain bars on the test results.
So again the paranoia is kinda rampant here... if you want to educate yourself a little heres a link to begin with.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200713/. The dna database is called CODIS and has been around since 1994 it has dna results from crime scenes in one half. And dna from people arrested for Rape, murder, and other violent crimes on the other.
your dna is you...it is your
your dna is you...it is your soul.....if you wish to give yours up, you go right ahead...I will never give mine...ever......so all you yes voters,go to the state police station and give them a saliva swab......after all, you don't have anything to fear..and you voted for it.....sheep
this country has been
this country has been floating in the toilet since the black robes made corporations into people, yesterday when they took away your right to privacy and compared dna to a photograph, they flushed it......god help us all.....
Yeah people used to believe
Yeah people used to believe that your photo was your soul too David. Once again you post BS they arent asking for every one to submit. Believe me if you are arrested for something substantial you wont have a choice. And by the way they compared dna to fingerprinting not just photos. I guess ignorance is very blissful anymore is it David?
Also as it was mentioned
Also as it was mentioned earlier, there are different types of arrests. An appearance ticket is considered a form of arrest. To formally be arrested for an alleged crime they have to have some sort of reason that can be presented to a judge to issue authorize it and issue a warrant, take Mike's example of you look like someone the police are looking at for a crime, before you arrested they have to take a witness description to a judge and have an arrest warrant issued. Even scofflaws for speeding tickets and parking tickets have to have a warrant issued by a judge. So theres your warrant. They could make an arrest warrant cover a DNA collection for ID.
In the case cited for Howard's poll. I believe that this tool could get alot more bad people off the street, solve alot more crimes that ordinarily go cold. Look at our local...our DA went ahead of the curve and prosecuted a dna profile so that a burglary wouldn't get away with his crime because of the statuate of limitations.
As for the DNA test itself you guys are really not making the distinction between DNA id tests and Medical DNA screening. Since we like the photo comparison lets use this metaphor for both the complexity and cost.
a dna id is like a b/w photograph in cost and ease of developing. Whereas a medical dna screening to determine health risks and other such detailed info that people believe would violate their rights is like the most expensive cat or mri scan both in cost and comlexity. IMHO even the Govt would find it prohibitive to do such not just cause of the costs but the need to involve specialists to interpret the data as well. Like someone pointed out maybe in the future when technology makes handling dna much more cost effective and smooth there would be a concern but as of now or the next 20 to 40 yrs, not very likely.
give up your rights kyle to
give up your rights kyle to feel safe.....you are a coward....I will die with my rights....you can live without yours.....that;s no BS
Which rights am I giving up
Which rights am I giving up David....please enlighten me. For all your defiant rhetoric I'd be willing to bet if the State showed up on your doorstep to collect your guns or to arrest you you'd step right aside and comply with every command given people like you who talk like this in cyber forums always do....
Like everything else, give up
Like everything else, give up just one more piece of freedom, and think there is something good about it.
Steal my rights today, maybe yours tomorrow. I am always against
any invasive action by the police state we call the USA.
What's next, random lie detector tests so we can be sure everyone is honest, please, enough govt. intrusion.
By the way, I have nothing to hide or fear, with the exception of giving up personal freedoms.
I have seen first hand how fast freedom goes out the window when you end up in a court of law, coercion, threats, orders of protection written illegally, etc.etc.! Been there, done that.
I still see no answer to the
I still see no answer to the question however, what rights are being given up by this. Just look at the comments here everyday, we ourselves take away rights, we judge, we find people guilty untils proven innocent, we see our local leaders push us around and deny our rights but we still elect/reelect them. We see groups steal our money from our pockets to line their own. But all thats ok.
But say your gonna take an id profile from someone who has been arrested and more than likely guilty of the crime and its a violation of our rights. How about the rights to see your relative's killer or rapist brought at least to trial. How about the right to own property without some knucklehead taking it from you. All these things could be reduced with dna database of offenders. Especially those who do minimal time then get released back out among us.
Specifically the orders of protection, how effective are they, written illegally or not? How many men women and children who thought they were protected by such a piece of paper still get harassed, beaten, hospitalized or buried despite that sheet of paper. How many times have they heard police say, "Unless we witness the violation then we cant do anything except record your complaint"
So how about straight answers, what rights do you give up having your DNA taken when arrested?
Kyle, I think you have a
Kyle, I think you have a confused conception of rights.
Passing judgement on somebody, for example, doesn't take away any rights from anybody.
Rights are about freedom -- the right to speak your mind, to publish your opinion, to associate with people of your choosing, to be secure in your person and property -- without undue government intervention in your personal liberty.
There's no right to be free of criticism nor a right to "see your relative's killer or rapist brought at least to trial."
As for this conversation, I find David Spaulding's articulation of his position rather dramatic, but he's essentially right in his position on this topic.
By natural right and by the Bill of Rights, you have a right to be secure in your person and property without undue government intervention. There's nothing more personal than your DNA sequence. The government should not have a copy of that without your consent or a damn good reason based on a strong foundation of due process.
Howard, spot on!! It seems
Howard, spot on!! It seems that some folks don't care about others rights as long as it doesn't affect them, that is just plain dangerous thinking.
If the government needs a
If the government needs a warrant to get a blood sample from you ,shouldn't a DNA swab be treated the same way..
Again I fail to see the
Again I fail to see the infringement on privacy how does the govt having your sequence infringe on the security of your person. As for property rights, I see people spit onto the sidewalk which is a significant amount of dna being just left in the grass or sidewalk or parkinglot. As I read the article you posted with this poll question Howard, the standard for collecting was being arrested for a violent crime. These types of crimes as I pointed out before require the police to aquire enough evidence to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant. The victims of murder DO have a right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, which has been taken away from them by someone, someone that could be discerned by fingerprint or dna. Rape victims have been violated in the most thorough way possible when it comes to the right of being secure in your person or property, burglary victms also in a much lesser degree.
I guess I just dont see where the Govt having your DNA limits your freedom to speak your mind, publish opinions or associate with people you choose to. The guy in Maryland who's case prompted this whole Supreme Court Ruling was arrested for another charge and ended up with more serious charges because he raped somone years ago and left enough biological material to be identified at this late date.
As for Frank B's comment your right I dont care about the rights of others, specifically others who use the freedoms Howard mentioned to deprive others of their rights. I do believe they still have rights to fair trial and such, but I dont believe that it is a right for them to not to be DNA sequenced if they are arrested in suspicion of said serious crime. As has been mentioned in this forum you have a right to do these actions but you dont have a right to avoid the consequences.
Like free speech is free speech but if you excercise it by shouting fire in a crowded theater you still have to face the financial and criminal consequences of having excercised that freedom.
The Govt has your Social Security # and can do a hell of alot more damage to your rights to be secure in your person and property with it. Yet we will give it out willingly to them without a thought or warrant...
Kyle, I get where you're
Kyle, I get where you're coming from, but again, when it comes to invasive procedures, I will never agree, law enforcement has been known to screw up once in awhile, after all, they are only human.
I don't believe you could be framed for a crime because someone has your SS#.. If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't trust, or have much faith in our entire system of justice. I'm not paranoid, I've just seen
too many examples of misconduct, harassment, favoritism, and the difference between the haves and the have not's.