State Lawmakers Propose Mandatory DNA Samples
 

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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:

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:

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:I think it's a violation of unreasonable search and seizure protections given in the constitution.

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.