State Lawmakers Propose Mandatory DNA Samples

[ETR3(SS)]

I may have my tin hat on for this one, but why exactly does this need to be mandatory? Wouldn't a warrant be more appropriate for something like this?:06::hmmm:

MADISON, Wis. -- Two Wisconsin lawmakers want DNA samples to be taken at the time of every felony arrest, citing arguments that it helps catch, and rule out, possible suspects in other crimes.http://www.channel3000.com/news/21357907/detail.html

[Skybird]

Usually one would think it is reasonable, but a genetic sample, different to a fingerprint, gives full information on your future risk for health problems, and thus databases containing such information are naturally a very inviting target for insurrance companies, employers, etc. The abue is possible, and one way or the other it will become reality, you can be sure. How many data scandals have we had in Britain and Germany in the past 12 months alone? Quite some.

It is really a two-edged sword, and corproations have far more power these days then they are legitimised to have in your community models. Just some days ago I saw a 1 hour docu on the pharmceutical industry preventing the release of internally known ultra-potent drugs and medications, becasue then the pool of sick people would become so small that their profits would be shrinking in the medium and long run. They want the population to be sick, and they keep it sick.

In a society where this kind of lobbyism, and many other exmaples, are not only possible but alrerady is reality, one has no reason to be enthusiastic about creating even more open holes private business can abuse for its own interest. Foul play has always been present in the past, but never before where cheater in posession of such enormous powers like today, and never before the consequences of cheating are so far-leading and decisive even for the planet's fate.

[AVGWarhawk]

I may have my tin hat on for this one, but why exactly does this need to be mandatory? Wouldn't a warrant be more appropriate for something like this?:06::hmmm:

http://www.channel3000.com/news/21357907/detail.html

Mandatory means the procedure to get the DNA after a felony is committed will be done...period. I have no issue with that, the person who committed the felony earned that. A warrant is a piece of paper stating X law enforcement office can and will arrest person X noted on the warrant when found. The DNA sample helps identify and or rule out without a shadow of a doubt anyone that might be a person of interest in any given crime. DNA samples have helped getting convictions. This type of evidence has also helped in clearing many suspects. Some who have been incarcerated for a long time.

Don't ask me what tangent Skybird went off on....:doh:

[MothBalls]

My $0.02

If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection)

If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes.

I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused. It opens up the potential for abuse, potentially charging someone just to get the sample.

@AVG I think what Sky is talking about is the potential abuse by corporations if they could get their hands on the data. A good example, a medical insurance company could screen the DNA and see they are a high cancer risk and deny coverage based on that. I don't think anyone outside of law enforcement should ever have access to any of the information just for this reason. He made a good point though, if it exists, only a matter of time before the corporations find a way to get the data.

[AVGWarhawk]

My $0.02

If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection)

If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes.

I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused. It opens up the potential for abuse, potentially charging someone just to get the sample.

@AVG I think what Sky is talking about is the potential abuse by corporations if they could get their hands on the data. A good example, a medical insurance company could screen the DNA and see they are a high cancer risk and deny coverage based on that. I don't think anyone outside of law enforcement should ever have access to any of the information just for this reason. He made a good point though, if it exists, only a matter of time before the corporations find a way to get the data.

Man, nice write up Mothball on the DNA:up:. As for Skybird, were are these corporation going to get the DNA? There is no abuse if they do not have your DNA. I agree that only law enforcement should have the DNA. If the insurance companies are that hard up for DNA they can make it part of their policy. I do not see that happening. I do not believe these corporation are actively looking to collect DNA.

[ETR3(SS)]

Mandatory means the procedure to get the DNA after a felony is committed will be done...period. I have no issue with that, the person who committed the felony earned that. A warrant is a piece of paper stating X law enforcement office can and will arrest person X noted on the warrant when found. The DNA sample helps identify and or rule out without a shadow of a doubt anyone that might be a person of interest in any given crime. DNA samples have helped getting convictions. This type of evidence has also helped in clearing many suspects. Some who have been incarcerated for a long time.

Don't ask me what tangent Skybird went off on....:doh: I would say your argument has some valid points but you are only looking at one aspect of it. You assume that the officer is not arresting the wrong person. If I happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and happen to fit the right (or wrong depending upon your perspective) description, then I get arrested and a DNA sample taken from me. While said sample may in fact prove my innocence, so could a number of other methods of investigation. You have to take into account that police officers are people just like you and me and therefor are not infallible. And now what is to become of this sample? I am an innocent man and there is no need for the government on any level to have a sample of my DNA.

Could this make things easier for the Judicial Branch? Yes. It could potentially lead to quicker and more accurate convictions. But on the same token, if the evidence is really there why not take the time to get a warrant to obtain the sample? DNA alone cannot and should not convict someone, all it proves is that I touched the handle at the Qwik-E-Mart, or had sex with Mary Jane over there.

[August]

I fail to see why the DNA sample couldn't be taken upon conviction rather than arrest and avoid the whole controversy.

[MothBalls]

I fail to see why the DNA sample couldn't be taken upon conviction rather than arrest and avoid the whole controversy.What if it is needed for the conviction? Hypothetical situation. Woman sleeping and a masked rapist breaks into the house. She never sees his face or any identifying features. However, he leaves a "sample" behind with no other physical evidence, fingetprints, etc.

Police arrest three possible suspects. All 3 have the same blood type. Only way to screen then is via DNA.

So in my scenario above, a warrant issued by a judge and all 3 suspects are screened. One is guilty, two are innocent. The sample from the guilty party should be stored forever, available to law enforcement agencies only. The other two samples from the innocent parties should be destroyed.

@AVG were are these corporation going to get the DNA?I think that's the point Sky was making. Just the fact that it does exist, eventually the corporations will use their influence and find a way to get at those samples. The thought of that scares me as well.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would say your argument has some valid points but you are only looking at one aspect of it. You assume that the officer is not arresting the wrong person. If I happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and happen to fit the right (or wrong depending upon your perspective) description, then I get arrested and a DNA sample taken from me. While said sample may in fact prove my innocence, so could a number of other methods of investigation. You have to take into account that police officers are people just like you and me and therefor are not infallible. And now what is to become of this sample? I am an innocent man and there is no need for the government on any level to have a sample of my DNA.

Could this make things easier for the Judicial Branch? Yes. It could potentially lead to quicker and more accurate convictions. But on the same token, if the evidence is really there why not take the time to get a warrant to obtain the sample? DNA alone cannot and should not convict someone, all it proves is that I touched the handle at the Qwik-E-Mart, or had sex with Mary Jane over there.

No, you are correct! Mothballs summed it up a hell of a lot better than I did. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

I think that's the point Sky was making. Just the fact that it does exist, eventually the corporations will use their influence and find a way to get at those samples. The thought of that scares me as well.

I do not see it happing IMO. It would be overstepping the bounds of privacy. Sure it does exist as Skybird points out. I have not experienced any corporation looking to collect DNA. This would be called predetermination based on DNA. Think about it, already insurance companies ask if there is any family history of heart problems, high blood pressure, cancer, etc. It makes you feel like a candidate to get these health problems because a family member (mom,dad) had these issue. I recall filling out a form for the University of Salisbury the first semester I attended. That asked if there were any suicides in my family. I answered yes. My great uncle killed himself by putting his pants belt around a bed post and his neck. He pulled it tight until death. Next thing I know I'm being called in to have a chit-chat with a student counselor. He asked me how I was...mentally:doh:

[XabbaRus]

Ah yes, we already have this in the UK.

Your DNA sample is kept on file even if you are released as a supsect and not needed for any further enquiry.

In Scotland it has to be deleted after a short period, in the rest of the UK I think it is held forever.

[August]

What if it is needed for the conviction?

Hypothetical situation. Woman sleeping and a masked rapist breaks into the house. She never sees his face or any identifying features. However, he leaves a "sample" behind with no other physical evidence, fingetprints, etc.

Police arrest three possible suspects. All 3 have the same blood type. Only way to screen then is via DNA.

So in my scenario above, a warrant issued by a judge and all 3 suspects are screened. One is guilty, two are innocent. The sample from the guilty party should be stored forever, available to law enforcement agencies only. The other two samples from the innocent parties should be destroyed.

Then they get a warrant as part of the ongoing investigation like they would for any other piece of evidence. The article referenced in the OP was talking about obtaining DNA samples without regard for their necessity to the case at hand.

Let me throw an example back at ya:

A person gets arrested for drunk driving. Should that give police the right to search his house?

[Dowly]

Sounds good to me. Maybe it would help lessen the crimes if the baddie knows his DNA is stored and he could get caught if he wouldnt be veeeery careful to not leave any of his DNA around the crimescene. :hmmm:

[MothBalls]

Then they get a warrant as part of the ongoing investigation like they would for any other piece of evidence. The article referenced in the OP was talking about obtaining DNA samples without regard for their necessity to the case at hand.


You must have missed my first post. I think the legislation sucks. It's a violation of the 4th amendment, in my opinion. I added this as my comment:

My $0.02

If arrested for a felony a warrant should be obtained to take the DNA sample, and approved only if it is relevant to the case and required for a conviction. (4th amendment protection)

If you're not convicted the sample should be destroyed. If you are convicted, then it should be forwarded to the FBI for storage and used to see if your committed other crimes or for tracking potential future crimes.

I have no problems with storing this data for convicted felons. But I do have a problem with forcing it on someone who is just accused.

I don't think anyone should have to give up a sample without due process, meaning a search warrant ordered by a judge. It wouldn't surprise me to see this eventually brought to the Supreme Court as a violation of the 4th amendment, if it hasn't already.

This is the part that really bothers me:"DNA is essentially, right now, the modern day fingerprint," said Wray. "We take fingerprints right at booking. I don't know why we can't take DNA."

Wray is an advocate of the proposed legislation, backed by state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf and state Rep. Ann Hraychuck. If passed as proposed, the bill would require samples be taken at the time of a felony arrest but before formal charges are filed.I think it's a violation of unreasonable search and seizure protections given in the constitution.

[Shearwater]

Maybe I get something wrong here, but doesn't the phrasing "arrest" mean that youd DNA fingerprint is to be collected before you get an actual trial? I mean, if you're arrested and proven guilty - fine. But only a suspicion is way to little justification to do that.
While I'm not so concerned about SB's point about private enterprises getting DNA data, I'm really worried what the state chooses to do with them. Who could tell? I just wonder: If people are so worried all the time about the state's growing influence (like e.g. about healthcare plans etc.), they should really be opposed to an idea like that.

[antikristuseke]

Sounds good to me. Maybe it would help lessen the crimes if the baddie knows his DNA is stored and he could get caught if he wouldnt be veeeery careful to not leave any of his DNA around the crimescene. :hmmm:

It will probably have the same deterrent value as the death penalty, none.

[Dowly]

It will probably have the same deterrent value as the death penalty, none.

Partypooper. :shifty:


Well, atleast it makes the police's job easier if they find DNA from the scene.

[AVGWarhawk]

It will probably have the same deterrent value as the death penalty, none.

I do not believe it is being peddled as a deterrent.

[antikristuseke]

I do not believe it is being peddled as a deterrent.

Neither do I, was adressing Dowlys post.

[August]

It will probably have the same deterrent value as the death penalty, none.

Now don't be too hasty. I don't know of any criminal who ever committed a crime after suffering the death penalty...

[AVGWarhawk]

Neither do I, was adressing Dowlys post.

Dowly has one good point, perps now might use gloves and chemicals to cover their DNA track. Some of these guys are damn smart.

[antikristuseke]

Now don't be too hasty. I don't know of any criminal who ever committed a crime after suffering the death penalty...

True enough, yet the death penalty ha no effect on overall crime rates which warrant the death penalty.

[AVGWarhawk]

True enough, yet the death penalty ha no effect on overall crime rates which warrant the death penalty.

True, most sit on death row for decades anyway. Read up on the Broomstick Killer who did his whacked out crimes in TX. I was a damn shame what happened to the young women after he was released in error. What good is the death penalty if the perp sits for decades?

Human piece of trash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez STILL WAITING ON DEATH ROW

[Skybird]

Man, nice write up Mothball on the DNA:up:. As for Skybird, were are these corporation going to get the DNA? There is no abuse if they do not have your DNA.

Yes, where are all those hackers getting their data, since they have not been given access to it? Mysterious. And non-authorized cross-office exchange of personal data - why does it exist if law does not allow it?

This is food for very hard thought.

Or sorry - but is it really? Haven't we had enough data scandals on the past 12 months already?

I do not see it happing IMO. It would be overstepping the bounds of privacy. Sure it does exist as Skybird points out. I have not experienced any corporation looking to collect DNA. This would be called predetermination based on DNA.

Ah yes, it is illegal by law, that's why nobody will do it. :lol: Isn't this a happy and honest planet we live on.


Don't get me wrong, I absolutely see the ebenfit of datastoring DNY smaples for law enforcement, and in an ideal world I would not think a second on objecting to it. But this world is not honest, but bad. I also the see the risks - which you still seem to minimise although reality already has overtaken you.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, where are all those hackers getting their data, since they have not been given access to it? Mysterious. And non-authorized cross-office exchange of personal data - why does it exist if law does not allow it?

This is food for very hard thought.

Or sorry - but is it really? Haven't we had enough data scandals on the past 12 months already?

Well, lets start with were and why your DNA got into a data base:hmmm: If it is not there then why worry?

[Skybird]

Well, lets start with were and why your DNA got into a data base:hmmm: If it is not there then why worry?For the same reason why fingerprints are kept in databases as well - to make them accessible for data processing - mass comparisons, for example. ;)


Security interests and freedom onterests need to be balanced against each other, you just can't have both maxed out. The more the slider moves toeards security, the more control there is, and the less freedom, the more freedom the slider indicates, the less control and the less control you get. - That'S what all these anti-terror laws we got in the past 9 years - try to hide from public discussion. But total security means total control and total loss of freedom and private sphere.

[AVGWarhawk]

For the same reason why fingerprints are kept in databases as well - to make them accessible for data processing - mass comparisons, for example. ;)


Security interests and freedom onterests need to be balanced against each other, you just can't have both maxed out. The more the slider moves toeards security, the more control there is, and the less freedom, the more freedom the slider indicates, the less control and the less control you get. - That'S what all these anti-terror laws we got in the past 9 years - try to hide from public discussion. But total security means total control and total loss of freedom and private sphere.

But you did not answer the question. How and where did your DNA get into the data base? I have not been anywhere were DNA was asked for. In law enforcement your DNA might end up in the data base as a result of a crime. Again, if your DNA is not in the data base why worry? I just do not see company X raiding my hair brush for a sample or getting taken to the ground only to find a cotton swab in my mouth for sample off my inner cheek.

[MothBalls]

Well, lets start with were and why your DNA got into a data base:hmmm: If it is not there then why worry?

Did you read the original article? The whole point of this discussion is the legislation they want to pass will let the police take samples without a warrant. This means they can just make you a suspect, collect the DNA and record it, nothing you can do about it. That's the part I object to.

I agree with Skybird as well. Once the data exists it is at risk of being stolen. It happens all the time. You can't tell me you don't see the stories about data comprimises. Add to that, the corporate risk. Eventually the corporations will use their influence to get the data legally. That scares me more than hackers do.

However, some are raising concerns about the proposal.

"Innocent people frequently are arrested, and so there's no more reason to have their DNA in the databank than yours and mine and anybody else's who's not committed any crime," said Keith Findley, co-director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

[AVGWarhawk]

Did you read the original article? The whole point of this discussion is the legislation they want to pass will let the police take samples without a warrant. This means they can just make you a suspect, collect the DNA and record it, nothing you can do about it. That's the part I object to.



This is were we part agreement. For starters, the police will not be entering your home for a sample nor will they call you in. We also have to consider probably cause. The there is illegal search and seizure. If your in the pokie you ended up there for a reason. Wrong spot at the wrong time only flys so far. I do not see this DNA issue going above law enforcement usage only...warranted or not.

[MothBalls]

The there is illegal search and seizure.Bingo! That's the whole point. I consider it to be illegal search and seizure to collect my DNA without a court order signed by a judge before I've been charged with a felony. The legislation they are trying to pass will give them that right, before any charge is filed, without a court order. It's a violation of the 4th amendment.

[Thomen]

But you did not answer the question. How and where did your DNA get into the data base? I have not been anywhere were DNA was asked for. In law enforcement your DNA might end up in the data base as a result of a crime. Again, if your DNA is not in the data base why worry? I just do not see company X raiding my hair brush for a sample or getting taken to the ground only to find a cotton swab in my mouth for sample off my inner cheek.

My DNA probably ended up in a German database roughly 15 years ago.

Had the German equivalent of the FBI/ State BI come to my house to collect samples and ask question about my whereabouts at a certain date and time to exclude me from a list of murder suspects.

Personally, I do not mind so much if DNA is collected by law enforcement. However, the notion that private companies could get access to those is pretty much laughable. If the privacy laws in Germany did not drastically change in the last five years, there is no way in hell any company can get access to those DB's except as a federal contractor.

[Skybird]

This is were we part agreement. For starters, the police will not be entering your home for a sample nor will they call you in. We also have to consider probably cause. The there is illegal search and seizure. If your in the pokie you ended up there for a reason. Wrong spot at the wrong time only flys so far. I do not see this DNA issue going above law enforcement usage only...warranted or not.
then you also do not see illegal advetising per telephone, rpobbery of bank datbases, hacking of customer databases, theft of disks with copied data as a problem. All this is illegal. All this gets done nevertheless, numbers climbing. For the third time, we have had several mahor data security falures in Britian and Germany in the past 12 months. Tens of thousands of datasets, in one case I think even hundreds of thousands, got hacked, also sensible defence data.

I don't know what game you are playing here, but this demonstrative display of naivety doesn't suit you, AVG. ;)

However.

[AVGWarhawk]

then you also do not see illegal advetising per telephone, rpobbery of bank datbases, hacking of customer databases, theft of disks with copied data as a problem. All this is illegal. All this gets done nevertheless, numbers climbing. For the third time, we have had several mahor data security falures in Britian and Germany in the past 12 months. Tens of thousands of datasets, in one case I think even hundreds of thousands, got hacked, also sensible defence data.

I don't know what game you are playing here, but this demonstrative display of naivety doesn't suit you, AVG. ;)

However.

Well hey, this all happened in Britian and Germany. I do not much care what happens in these two countries. I do not see DNA as some sort of chart topper for corporations here in the states. The DNA in the data bases are from those with some type of criminal record. Really, what would a corporation want with Charles Mason's DNA? The only game here is you suspect you will be tackled to the ground for your DNA or your DNA will be sought after by corporations. Really, you have no reason to fear anything if you DNA is not in a data base. Even then, why worry? This worry on DNA is as bad as our discussion about looking after my daughters and being protective as I am.

[MothBalls]

Personally, I do not mind so much if DNA is collected by law enforcement. However, the notion that private companies could get access to those is pretty much laughable. If the privacy laws in Germany did not drastically change in the last five years, there is no way in hell any company can get access to those DB's except as a federal contractor.

You do understand that the data is reduced to a number. That's all that is needed. It isn't an actual tissue sample. It becomes nothing more than a data point, just like a fingerprint.

As far as access to it? I don't know if there is a German equivalent list, but here's one from the US: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm#CP

[Shearwater]

then you also do not see illegal advetising per telephone, rpobbery of bank datbases, hacking of customer databases, theft of disks with copied data as a problem. All this is illegal. All this gets done nevertheless, numbers climbing. For the third time, we have had several mahor data security falures in Britian and Germany in the past 12 months. Tens of thousands of datasets, in one case I think even hundreds of thousands, got hacked, also sensible defence data.

I don't know what game you are playing here, but this demonstrative display of naivety doesn't suit you, AVG. ;)

However.

Plus, if you want legal action to be taken against such activities, you can call the police. But when police does something that isn't quite according to the law, who you gonna call - Ghostbusters?

[AVGWarhawk]

Plus, if you want legal action to be taken against such activities, you can call the police. But when police does something that isn't quite according to the law, who you gonna call - Ghostbusters?

No man, the Ghostbusters have the machine that changes the molecular structure of your DNA. Not cool man.

[Thomen]

You do understand that the data is reduced to a number. That's all that is needed. It isn't an actual tissue sample. It becomes nothing more than a data point, just like a fingerprint.

Indeed. I am aware of this. :up:

As far as access to it? I don't know if there is a German equivalent list, but here's one from the US: http://www.privacyrights.org/ar/ChronDataBreaches.htm#CP

Damn.. I am not even sure I do want know if such a list exists.

It is rather scary that those pencil pusher who oversee all that stuff seem to have no clue about data security.
Friend of mine works as a Data Security Manager for a local federal agency here, and the kind of stories he tells are really scary when it comes to pencil pushers and scientiests.

[Shearwater]

No man, the Ghostbusters have the machine that changes the molecular structure of your DNA. Not cool man.

Yeah, I was a bit fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon. :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, I was a bit fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon. :DL

Welcome sir! :up:

[Zachstar]

Lovely for the OP to leave that "At arrest for Felony" part out of the title.

Nothing to worry about. Matter of fact I believe DNA needs to be taken at any arrest. DNA is far more effective at identifying real criminals than fingerprints could ever dream of.

[CaptainHaplo]

There are a number of issues here.

First - your innocent until PROVEN guilty. This means that without probably cause, you shouldn't be arrested in the first place. Yet such arrests happen. So to say that "if you ended up in the pokie, you must have done something wrong" is not true at all. I have been arrested and charged with a felony. Spent three days in jail. Got bailed out, ultimately went to court, and was acquitted because I had done nothing wrong. *All I will say is psychotic ex-wife*

Yet with this law, my DNA would be on file with an arm of the government, and they have no right to have it. So we have a problem already.

Next you have unreasonable search and seizure. DNA is by definition, the building block of life. Therefore, my DNA is part of ME! This law would allow a police officer to take part of me, against my will, for testing. The difference between a flake of skin or a strand of hair vs my finger or an arm, are simply matters of scale. So this would make it ok to take part of me apart, as long as it was a "tiny" amount. Bullcrap. Thats like saying if you steal a million dollars its theft, but if you steal one dollar from my wallet its ok because it didn't hurt.

This could easily be gotten around anyway since DNA can be collected in ways that do not violate either this or the next point.

Right to privacy - whats mine is mine - and my DNA is mine. Now there are times when that right can be overridden, but they require a warrant signed by a judge. Whats wrong with having to go to a judge and say "we need this, here is the reason we think we are within the law to get it" and have him decide? This violates the whole idea of due process.

Whats amazing is the last two objections don't even need to be there. Because say your suspect is a smoker.... watch him take a smoke break at work, then when he flips the cig, go reclaim it. Sure its disgusting, but by discarding it, he put it in the public domain, so you don't need a warrant to procure and test it. Get a match? Then go to a judge and say look, we got a suspect, watched him smoke a coffin nail, retrieved it and had it tested. It matches - so we need an arrest warrant.

The above actually occured in a case BTW, and the DNA evidence was accepted as having legal standing despite defense objections. The conviction was also upheld in all following appeals.

It doesn't have to be a cig, can be a cup of water, a soda can, a fork, etc. You get the picture.

Final problem..... DNA is NOT the "end all" of identification. It is nowhere NEAR the 99.9% "certainty" often quoted by law enforcement.

Read here and see for yourself:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/20/dna-what-are-the-odds.aspx (http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/07/20/dna-what-are-the-odds.aspx)

Many here know how statistics can be manipulated, but the fact that law enforcement will not allow the DB to be checked to determine the true "odds", and instead bases the number off their "estimates", tells me quite a bit.

Simple solution - DNA on file at conviction, or follow due process as is required now.

[ETR3(SS)]

Allow me to interject this part of the article as no one has seemed to touch on it.

Taking DNA samples during an arrest is already the law in 21 states, WISC-TV reported.21 states already do this? 21?! That's nearly half the US. I would think that news of this would have been more prolific when almost half the United States has this law.

EDIT: A bit more of the story from another TV station.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - State lawmakers have introduced a bill that would require sheriffs and police to swab anyone arrested for a felony for DNA.
Twenty-one states take DNA upon arrest. Right now in Wisconsin a suspect must be convicted of a felony before he or she must submit a sample.


Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, a River Falls Republican, says taking DNA upon arrest like fingerprints and mug shots could tie a suspect to other crimes faster and save the state money on lengthy investigations.


The American Civil Liberties Union's Wisconsin chapter taking DNA upon arrest, calling it too expensive and too invasive.
Look the ACLU does something good for once(lately)!

[Platapus]

Do they still take DNA samples in the military? They did when I was in.

[ETR3(SS)]

I don't recall having my DNA taken but that doesn't mean they didn't. They do take blood still so they could easily get it from that.

[Zachstar]

I am not going to even try to debate the insane and stupid conspiracy theories around DNA. Often started by those on the far right who hate that it has proven that some people on death row are innocent.

DNA is far more effective than fingerprints. And its effectiveness at proving innocence is why its important that DNA be taken at arrest.

And almost half the nation does it already. It saves money in the long run because its hard to appeal a conviction based on DNA.

[CaptainHaplo]

But see - there lies the rub Zachstar.

I have no problem with DNA exonerating someone. Far from it - the innocent should be shown to be.

The key is that if a person is innocent of a crime, they can agree to have their DNA tested, as they CHOOSE! They can also decide to NOT agree, maybe they don't trust the police labs, and have their DNA tested by an outside group. But its their CHOICE.

This law isn't about proving innocence. Its about proving guilt, either in this crime, or maybe another one somewhere.

Sure it could prove them innocent. But its NOT the property of the government to take without the consent of the owner. An innocent man would likely say "sure, take my dna". But likely doesn't mean every innocent would.

This law takes PERSONAL CHOICE away from someone who has - by our laws, not been found guilty of any crime. THAT is why its wrong. Once your convicted - no problem. If your innocent, your probably going to be fine with it, and I know what some will say -

"If your not doing anything wrong, whats the problem, you have nothing to fear, right?"

But how many people are in jail today having been framed by overzealous cops and prosecutors? They can manipulate the system just as criminals do. Maybe they NEED a conviction, so your "sample" gets mixed with one from the crime scene, poof, you were there. Like they are going to tell you they did that? State lab results say they can prove you were there, you know you weren't, what recourse does the average joe, or better yet the "poor black fella" picked up off the street have against that?

The protection from unreasonable search and seizure doesn't just protect the accused, it protects innocents everywhere.

The State must prove its case against you, and you are NOT required to incriminate yourself.

Again, whats wrong with due process? There are ways to get this without violating the privacy and protection every citizen has. Due process is there as a way to get what is needed, why must people's rights be violated just to "save the state some money". If it is, then its wrong right there, because if saving the government money (so it can blow it on useless crap like it tends to do) is more important than protecting the rights of its citizens, then it has crossed the line of doing the people's work, and is instead doing its own. That also is in violation of the spirit of freedom and is morally reprehensible.

EDIT: Now in two threads I have seen Skybird mention something, and it be pointed out that conspiracy theories are "often started" by those on the right or him being associated with the Xtian religion. I can safely say that Sky is neither, but because a point of view didn't sit well, it must come from those evil right wingers. How unsuprising the generalizations become.

[August]

Often started by those on the far right who hate that it has proven that some people on death row are innocent.

Is this really necessary? :shifty:

[Zachstar]

Is this really necessary? :shifty:

Quite notice how I said far right tho. People that hate people people being proven innocent because of color or class status.

DNA has done far more good than bad random fingerprints and other issues with that system have led to countless bad arrests and convictions that cost states millions to settle.

Its the future and accuracy is getting even better than already near perfect. FAR FAR ahead of fingerprints.

[goldorak]

Usually one would think it is reasonable, but a genetic sample, different to a fingerprint, gives full information on your future risk for health problems, and thus databases containing such information are naturally a very inviting target for insurrance companies, employers, etc. The abue is possible, and one way or the other it will become reality, you can be sure. How many data scandals have we had in Britain and Germany in the past 12 months alone? Quite some.

It is really a two-edged sword, and corproations have far more power these days then they are legitimised to have in your community models. Just some days ago I saw a 1 hour docu on the pharmceutical industry preventing the release of internally known ultra-potent drugs and medications, becasue then the pool of sick people would become so small that their profits would be shrinking in the medium and long run. They want the population to be sick, and they keep it sick.

In a society where this kind of lobbyism, and many other exmaples, are not only possible but alrerady is reality, one has no reason to be enthusiastic about creating even more open holes private business can abuse for its own interest. Foul play has always been present in the past, but never before where cheater in posession of such enormous powers like today, and never before the consequences of cheating are so far-leading and decisive even for the planet's fate.

I agree 100% with you.
The path to a surveillance state and corporate controlled/influenced state is so easy in this day and age that you have to question EVERY decision that pushes our societies closer to that goal. Mandating DNA samples for the stupidest of infractions is a no go in my opinion.
A free democratic society has it pluses and minuses.
I hold dear the freedom and accept the downside of it.
Every intelligent citizen should think like this. Otherwise we get the stupid "if you have nothing to hide you won't mind DNA samples". Or the protect the children as an excuse to foister upon us more and more liberticide legislations etc....
NO THANKS. Once you sacrifice freedom and liberty for security (a goal that will never be achieved as it is utopistic) your liberal society is doomed.

[August]

Quite notice how I said far right tho. People that hate people people being proven innocent because of color or class status.

Well if you go far enough out to the fringe on either side of the political spectrum you can find people who hate. That doesn't make their opinions any more germane to this discussion though.

DNA has done far more good than bad random fingerprints and other issues with that system have led to countless bad arrests and convictions that cost states millions to settle.

Its the future and accuracy is getting even better than already near perfect. FAR FAR ahead of fingerprints.

Here we can agree. I just don't think the state should have a right to collect DNA samples from innocent people and just being arrested for a crime the government hasn't proven in court doesn't qualify.