State Lawmakers Propose Mandatory DNA Samples

[August]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

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.

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by August

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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

Partypooper.


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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

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

Neither do I, was adressing Dowlys post.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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...

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

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