New York Times - Feds can take DNA from anyone arrested or detained.
"The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering…"
"The new forensic DNA sampling was authorized by Congress in a little-noticed amendment to a January 2006 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections and assistance for victims of sexual crimes. The amendment permits DNA collecting from anyone under criminal arrest by federal authorities, and also from illegal immigrants detained by federal agents."
"The goal ... is to make the practice of DNA sampling as routine as fingerprinting for anyone detained by federal agents, including illegal immigrants. Until now, federal authorities have taken DNA samples only from convicted felons."
"“What this does is move the DNA collection to the arrest stage,†said Erik Ablin, a Justice Department spokesman. “The general approach,†he said, “is to bring the collection of DNA samples into alignment with current federal fingerprint collection practices.†He said the department was “moving forward aggressively†to issue proposed regulations. "
-----------------------------------------
To summarise... Your DNA is no longer protected by the Fourth or Fifth amendments, and can be taken anytime any federal authority decides to detain you, for any reason, at any time. Even if you end up not being arrested, or even charged with a crime - even if you are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing, your genetic makeup will be loaded into a national database along with every convicted felon in the nation, and will remain there indefinitely. You can only remove your own genetic material's information from the database with a court order, which will either be impossible or extremely difficult to do (e.g., like trying to remove your name from the no-fly list) and your DNA will be subject to scrutinization by anyone with access to this database - which you will never know. Your unique genetic structure will be federal property, and will remain in the hands of faceless beaurocrats for your entire life, and - don't kid yourself - well beyond the grave. Congratulations, America. Another unchallenged perversion and invasion into your individual lives has gone unnoticed.
1984? Please. That's so yesterday.
Your DNA? Government property.
Tracking genetic information? Knowing anyone's predisposition to genetic disorders/medical conditions? Their predispositions to violence/sexual deviancy? Subtle genetic segregation? The use of genetic makeup as a biasing factor? Let's say, hypothetically, that the "gay gene" is found - you think it'd be good if the government then had a database of almost everyone's DNA? How about the fact that they would control whatever could be done with your genetic information - like that soldier who was killed in Iraq, but who had donated sperm previously. The family won a court order to get his DNA, and now they want to implant it into a donor egg to make a child. So even though he (and the biological mother) won't be involved at all - AND he has no ability to consent - they are going to give birth to a child of his, without him ever being involved. There is simply NO GOOD that can come from the government knowing the population's DNA. Even beyond the basic arguments that it is a SUPREME violation of unreasonable search and seizure, invasion of privacy and unwarranted access to people's information, it's a no-win situation for the public. Not to mention that they would know who has "desirable" and "undesirable" genetic traits... Jeez, man - how can you not have a problem with them taking your DNA without consent?I don't see what's so wrong. It's not as if faceless bureaucrats could do with you DNA patterns much more than with the picture of your face, or your fingerprints.
I don't see it...
As far as i know, when they speak of DNA banks, they never speak of keeping records of your sequenced DNA, they just keep a record of your genetic fingerprint. This fingerprint is only useful for comparing two different DNAs and seeing if they match (that's what they do in the fatherhood tests). I doubt they would go through all the trouble of sequencing the whole DNA (or even only the interesting parts*) because it is a very costly process.
Please, don't take my words at face value, because i am not an expert. Maybe our resident biologist can shed some light on the matter ^_^
*You could say the interesting parts are the genes, but nowadays it's not so clear. It's beginning to be known the role that many non-expressable sequences have a role in the development of certain traits of the individual, and even illnesses. Nowadays we know that only having in account the genes would be a mistake... and sequencing the non-expressable parts of the DNA is a truly titanical task.
As far as i know, when they speak of DNA banks, they never speak of keeping records of your sequenced DNA, they just keep a record of your genetic fingerprint. This fingerprint is only useful for comparing two different DNAs and seeing if they match (that's what they do in the fatherhood tests). I doubt they would go through all the trouble of sequencing the whole DNA (or even only the interesting parts*) because it is a very costly process.
Please, don't take my words at face value, because i am not an expert. Maybe our resident biologist can shed some light on the matter ^_^
*You could say the interesting parts are the genes, but nowadays it's not so clear. It's beginning to be known the role that many non-expressable sequences have a role in the development of certain traits of the individual, and even illnesses. Nowadays we know that only having in account the genes would be a mistake... and sequencing the non-expressable parts of the DNA is a truly titanical task.
-
VelvetElvis
- Commander
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
- Title: is real!
- First Joined: 0- 9-2004
-
Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
I really don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, if you have a repeat sexual predator, isn't it best that the government has his DNA on file and compare it with the semen sample taken from the victim? (Okay, so there are some things that could go wrong, but still...it's a fairly decent thing to have when you're trying to find the criminal.)
I mean, truthfully...it's about the same as them having your image or fingerprints on file. Since I don't plan on getting arrested any time soon, I have no problem with it.
I mean, truthfully...it's about the same as them having your image or fingerprints on file. Since I don't plan on getting arrested any time soon, I have no problem with it.
(Dresden's battle cry going against fairies in book 4.)I don't believe in fairies!
When having this discussion in other political intertube circles, someone else replied with a much more thorough dissection of the concept. After some tit-for-tat, this is what I summised...
Government politicians and bureaucrats are not a forces of nature, despite that they wish to be taken as if they were. They are arbitrary conventions of human civilization. Attempts at moderating the scope of their authority do not constitute evasions of reality (one could posit that it constitutes a neccessity of keeping the ideal of liberty alive.)
That which the government is not specifically authorized to do, it is forbidden from doing. The presumption, especially reinforced by the implications of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, is that the government has a very limited scope in collecting such information from people. The Constitution specifies limited powers of the government. It does not specify rights, nor presume to create them, nor dole them out. Rights and immunities need not be specifically mentioned to be "protected by the Constitution".
First off, according to Federalist Alexander Hamilton, everything in the Bill of Rights is essentially a recapitulation of limitations implied in the body of the Constitution for the benefit of the terminally slow who do not understand the concept of enumerated powers. Hamilton's assertion is that the Fourth Amendment is unnecessary because it is implicitly the case that the federal government lacks the authority to conduct warrant-less search and seizure operations. Nevertheless, to insure that those pesky Anti-federalists who were militating against the ratification of the Constitution would be mollified, the Federalists conceded to the ratification of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the inappropriately named "Bill of Rights." The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:
Now, you tell me how much arbitrary snooping and seizing the Constitution appears to authorize government agents to do.
A disrespect for anonymity is a disrespect for autonomy and sovereignty. When information can be compelled of people, civilization divides into two classes: those required to provide information on demand and those entitled to demand information. When those authorized to represent the government are in the former class then the representative civilization is essentially a free one. When those authorized to represent the government are in the latter class then the civilization is essentially a tyranny.
An entity numbers, indexes and catalogs those things which are possessions belonging to it. If anyone should be numbered, tracked, identified and called to periodic account it is agents of the government by individuals, not vice versa. If the government can compel you to cough up information about yourself without first having to prove that you have committed a crime, or even that its agents suspect you of committing a crime; if they are authorized to collect this information in secret, analyze it in secret, use it for purposes which are undisclosed, share it with entities which are unidentified, then the government is a criminal tyranny with absolutely no justification whatsoever.
Collecting information about something is a means to an end -- the end is control of that something. Yes, it is that simple. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There is no such thing as a servant that must be obeyed. Either individuals are sovereign, the government is accountable to them, and government intervention into their lives, liberty, and property are extraordinary exceptions to the general rule, or else they are serfs in all but name and particular circumstances. If the government is allowed to scrutinize who you know, with whom you associate, how much you make, how you earn your living, how much you spend and upon what, where you go, and how you live your life, then the supposed anonymity of the voting booth is a silly fetish and a meaningless illusion.
In closing, the only arguments I've seen implying that people shouldn't have a problem with this have been vague at best. The first seems to be that, since people don't plan on being arrested, they shouldn't be worried. Well sorry folks, you don't need to be arrested for this to be a problem. Simple detainment is enough. You don't need to commit a crime, or even be suspected of such, for this to happen. We don't need a slippery-slope argument, because the ramifications are right there in front of you. Plenty of innocent people (i.e., potentially YOU) are outright convicted, let alone arrested or merely detained. Secondly, some people seem to be of the opinion that since DNA is currently a limited science, that they shouldn't be worried. Sorry again folks, but science advances. That's the point of science. But even without this issues, the principles being violated here are obvious, and speak for themselves.
Government politicians and bureaucrats are not a forces of nature, despite that they wish to be taken as if they were. They are arbitrary conventions of human civilization. Attempts at moderating the scope of their authority do not constitute evasions of reality (one could posit that it constitutes a neccessity of keeping the ideal of liberty alive.)
That which the government is not specifically authorized to do, it is forbidden from doing. The presumption, especially reinforced by the implications of the Fourth and Fifth amendments, is that the government has a very limited scope in collecting such information from people. The Constitution specifies limited powers of the government. It does not specify rights, nor presume to create them, nor dole them out. Rights and immunities need not be specifically mentioned to be "protected by the Constitution".
First off, according to Federalist Alexander Hamilton, everything in the Bill of Rights is essentially a recapitulation of limitations implied in the body of the Constitution for the benefit of the terminally slow who do not understand the concept of enumerated powers. Hamilton's assertion is that the Fourth Amendment is unnecessary because it is implicitly the case that the federal government lacks the authority to conduct warrant-less search and seizure operations. Nevertheless, to insure that those pesky Anti-federalists who were militating against the ratification of the Constitution would be mollified, the Federalists conceded to the ratification of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the inappropriately named "Bill of Rights." The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:
In other words, in case we sub-genius descendants of the brilliant Founders failed to "get it" from the explicit and implicit meanings of the text of the main body of the Constitution, they spelled out the absolute limitations on government authority for us. The government has absolutely NO authority to seize and/or scrutinize the lives and effects of individuals unless they have the permission of what they founders hoped would be an independent judiciary. Furthermore, the judiciary was enjoined to withhold their permission (warrant) unless the agents desiring to snoop and seize would swear that there was probable cause (evidence that an actual crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed. Also, the judiciary were mandated to withhold their warrant until those who desired to snoop and sieze had listed, up front, the limited places they wanted to search, and the limited items they intended to seize.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, you tell me how much arbitrary snooping and seizing the Constitution appears to authorize government agents to do.
A disrespect for anonymity is a disrespect for autonomy and sovereignty. When information can be compelled of people, civilization divides into two classes: those required to provide information on demand and those entitled to demand information. When those authorized to represent the government are in the former class then the representative civilization is essentially a free one. When those authorized to represent the government are in the latter class then the civilization is essentially a tyranny.
An entity numbers, indexes and catalogs those things which are possessions belonging to it. If anyone should be numbered, tracked, identified and called to periodic account it is agents of the government by individuals, not vice versa. If the government can compel you to cough up information about yourself without first having to prove that you have committed a crime, or even that its agents suspect you of committing a crime; if they are authorized to collect this information in secret, analyze it in secret, use it for purposes which are undisclosed, share it with entities which are unidentified, then the government is a criminal tyranny with absolutely no justification whatsoever.
Collecting information about something is a means to an end -- the end is control of that something. Yes, it is that simple. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There is no such thing as a servant that must be obeyed. Either individuals are sovereign, the government is accountable to them, and government intervention into their lives, liberty, and property are extraordinary exceptions to the general rule, or else they are serfs in all but name and particular circumstances. If the government is allowed to scrutinize who you know, with whom you associate, how much you make, how you earn your living, how much you spend and upon what, where you go, and how you live your life, then the supposed anonymity of the voting booth is a silly fetish and a meaningless illusion.
In closing, the only arguments I've seen implying that people shouldn't have a problem with this have been vague at best. The first seems to be that, since people don't plan on being arrested, they shouldn't be worried. Well sorry folks, you don't need to be arrested for this to be a problem. Simple detainment is enough. You don't need to commit a crime, or even be suspected of such, for this to happen. We don't need a slippery-slope argument, because the ramifications are right there in front of you. Plenty of innocent people (i.e., potentially YOU) are outright convicted, let alone arrested or merely detained. Secondly, some people seem to be of the opinion that since DNA is currently a limited science, that they shouldn't be worried. Sorry again folks, but science advances. That's the point of science. But even without this issues, the principles being violated here are obvious, and speak for themselves.
"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful." - Tarthang Tulku
-
zeroguy
- Commander
- Posts: 2741
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
- Title: 01111010 01100111
- First Joined: 0- 8-2001
- Location: Where you least expect me.
- Contact:
I am not all too worried about this either, but I'd just like to say that "I don't plan on getting arrested" doesn't seem like the best of reasons not to be concerned... (E.g. replace "dna stuff" with torture/rape/death penalty, etc.) At least, not as a sole reason, and I don't mean to imply that it's Seiryu's or anyone else's sole reason.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.
dgf hhw
dgf hhw
Still, this sounds like science fiction to me.
True: probably in the future it will be a lot easier to extract precise information about ourselves from our DNA. Just remember that by then, collecting the DNA itself will be even easier: should we ban the collection of proofs laying in the ground, because they might contain protected DNA? Or whatever has been in contact with the detained person? That's ridiculous in my oppinion.
What needs (will need) to be done, is be very specific on what kind of information police is allowed to collect from DNA, and with what purpouse. Keeping a register of DNA fingerprint of every detained person is quite inocuous to me.
But well, i could be biased, since in my country every adult individual must have a government-sanctioned ID that contains your finger prints. (To be honest, this information cannot be undisclosed for police research until that person is detained, even though who make these IDs are police themselves)
True: probably in the future it will be a lot easier to extract precise information about ourselves from our DNA. Just remember that by then, collecting the DNA itself will be even easier: should we ban the collection of proofs laying in the ground, because they might contain protected DNA? Or whatever has been in contact with the detained person? That's ridiculous in my oppinion.
What needs (will need) to be done, is be very specific on what kind of information police is allowed to collect from DNA, and with what purpouse. Keeping a register of DNA fingerprint of every detained person is quite inocuous to me.
But well, i could be biased, since in my country every adult individual must have a government-sanctioned ID that contains your finger prints. (To be honest, this information cannot be undisclosed for police research until that person is detained, even though who make these IDs are police themselves)
-
VelvetElvis
- Commander
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
- Title: is real!
- First Joined: 0- 9-2004
-
lovesonia
- Soldier
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:47 am
- Location: Carson Cityish... Nevada
- Contact:
My second parents - my second father much more than my second mother- are particularly paranoid about the government. He won't fly, and hesitates to even go to the airport. You see, he's very political. Quite liberal, I suppose. He is, in no way, shape or form, a fan of the current government. He also believes that a list with name of American citizens that the government believes are 'terrorists' exists and that he's on it due to his beliefs and strong dislike for the president.
My stepfather gave him a calendar counting down until the end of the term for Christmas. If my mom hadn't trumped that gift with two geeky t-shirts, it would've been his favorite gift. He beamed. It's really pretty odd seeing a 6'5" man BEAM like a child would.
In any case... I'm not concerned whether there is or not. I mean, just so long as they don't chip me, I'm good. *thumbs up*
My stepfather gave him a calendar counting down until the end of the term for Christmas. If my mom hadn't trumped that gift with two geeky t-shirts, it would've been his favorite gift. He beamed. It's really pretty odd seeing a 6'5" man BEAM like a child would.
In any case... I'm not concerned whether there is or not. I mean, just so long as they don't chip me, I'm good. *thumbs up*
HAiaSMG
I like this point, because I'm very *not* liberal. At least, in the modern sense of "liberalism" that has metastasized from the classic version. And yet, I am *also* rather paranoid about the government (the current one in particular) and am no fan of it in any way, shape or form.You see, he's very political. Quite liberal, I suppose. He is, in no way, shape or form, a fan of the current government. He also believes that a list with name of American citizens that the government believes are 'terrorists' exists and that he's on it due to his beliefs and strong dislike for the president.
Also, he is not necessarily wrong about his belief that a list with American names on it exists; names the government considers risks or threats. I believe it's very possible that such a list exists. And, if he has spoken over the phone with anyone and said any particular words, like "bomb", "terror", "president", etc, he may very well be on that list. Then again, so would I. At any rate, the point is that I agree, and he and I probably have very different socio-political ideals.
On a side note, if all you are worried about is the government deciding to put a chip in you (RFID or otherwise) then this SHOULD concern you. Everything starts from somewhere, and the future movement to chip everyone may very well start with this kind of privacy violation. I mean, if it's okay to keep everyone's fingerprints, photos and DNA information, how can you argue against chipping? You need a firm platform from which to protect yourself from the government.
And to HBC, yes, more fire. Do you like?
"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful." - Tarthang Tulku
-
VelvetElvis
- Commander
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
- Title: is real!
- First Joined: 0- 9-2004
Or even better: we need to stop being paranoid and keep the government in check and tight control. If the population is educated, there is nothing to fear. After all, the government is put by ourselves, and ourselves can get rid of it.I mean, if it's okay to keep everyone's fingerprints, photos and DNA information, how can you argue against chipping? You need a firm platform from which to protect yourself from the government.
As the classical generals used to say: "profusion of sweat saves blood".
Here's the deal...the population of England is 50,690,000 and the population of USA is 301,112,000. I doubt either government has the time to track EVERY single member of either country that have no criminal record. Even if civilians have them, there's no reason to track 301,112,000 people, nor enough sources for that. Same goes for DNA, it's no big deal.
(Dresden's battle cry going against fairies in book 4.)I don't believe in fairies!
Right; this echoes the previous sentiment.Or even better: we need to stop being paranoid and keep the government in check and tight control. If the population is educated, there is nothing to fear. After all, the government is put by ourselves, and ourselves can get rid of it.I mean, if it's okay to keep everyone's fingerprints, photos and DNA information, how can you argue against chipping? You need a firm platform from which to protect yourself from the government.
As the classical generals used to say: "profusion of sweat saves blood".
Government politicians and bureaucrats are not a forces of nature, despite that they wish to be taken as if they were. They are arbitrary conventions of human civilization. Attempts at moderating the scope of their authority do not constitute evasions of reality (one could posit that it constitutes a neccessity of keeping the ideal of liberty alive.)
"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful." - Tarthang Tulku
Okay...here's what my friend has explained to me about DNA:
It is impossible to have cells "on file" and be living for too very long (of course,) so what they do is they photograph the image of your DNA strands and codes and so forth and they keep that on file. Now, I don't think that's so bad. It's the same a photo of your face or so forth on file. Not an issue. Seriously, though, what do those opposed to it have against it?
It is impossible to have cells "on file" and be living for too very long (of course,) so what they do is they photograph the image of your DNA strands and codes and so forth and they keep that on file. Now, I don't think that's so bad. It's the same a photo of your face or so forth on file. Not an issue. Seriously, though, what do those opposed to it have against it?
(Dresden's battle cry going against fairies in book 4.)I don't believe in fairies!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's break it down...
1.) --- a.) It is a violation of the right to privacy.
------- b.) It is both a search and a seizure.
------- c.) In both instances for b, it is warrant-less, with no probable cause required
2.) --- a.) The Founders firmly held that the right to property stemmed directly from the right to person; i.e., that property is simply an extension of the self. This interpretation (the only subjective of the arguments in this statement) would clearly hold that the seizure of genetic information is a seizure of property, and a violation of the Constitution.
------- b.) No due process is provided to the individual, either for preventing the seizure or for reclaiming the information (as in the instance of getting your name taken off the "No Fly List")
3.) --- a.) The right to your own genetic material, even if in no other context, is ensured by the IX amendment
4.) --- a.) The federal government does not have the enumerated Constitutional right to seize this information, nor to compel the information to be provided except in instances that fall under the IV and V amendments.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's break it down...
1.) --- a.) It is a violation of the right to privacy.
------- b.) It is both a search and a seizure.
------- c.) In both instances for b, it is warrant-less, with no probable cause required
2.) --- a.) The Founders firmly held that the right to property stemmed directly from the right to person; i.e., that property is simply an extension of the self. This interpretation (the only subjective of the arguments in this statement) would clearly hold that the seizure of genetic information is a seizure of property, and a violation of the Constitution.
------- b.) No due process is provided to the individual, either for preventing the seizure or for reclaiming the information (as in the instance of getting your name taken off the "No Fly List")
3.) --- a.) The right to your own genetic material, even if in no other context, is ensured by the IX amendment
4.) --- a.) The federal government does not have the enumerated Constitutional right to seize this information, nor to compel the information to be provided except in instances that fall under the IV and V amendments.
"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful." - Tarthang Tulku
1) Taking a DNA sample is not a search when processing someone. During evidence taking, yes. The difference? DNA can be used against one (especially in a rape case) and the latter is the equivalent to taking fingerprints and a mugshot. You do not need warrants for them because you have the warrant to arrest said individual.
2) Considering that police and so forth actually do take DNA samples (sperm, blood, etc.) it stands to reason that the only real difference is that they would keep it on file AFTER a person is arrested and not during evidence, though I do suppose they might since they keep every other piece of relevant evidence. I mean, you might as well ask for OTHER evidence back if you believe DNA is that important. The problem with this argument is that the taking of DNA does not harm an individual.
3) With that said, most cases where DNA would be entered in as data would be in cases that they would take that as evidence. In those instances, you might as well tell the police that they are not allowed to take DNA for the purposes of evidence because it violates the law.
Put yourself in the shoes of a family of a woman brutally murdered. They know she was raped before her death and none of the suspects thus far as a match, but the police start comparing the DNA to ones they have in a file and they come across the killer because the man is a repeat sexual offender.
On the flip side of that, imagine you're a serial rapist. What exactly do you have going for you that the genetic material is going to do? So you get caught again, but the worst that happens is that you get a nasty prick in the arm for a blood sample. They might have something of yours, but the only real suffering you go through for the lack of something is you have to replace a bit of blood and you personally do not notice it. Not really that big of a deal.
2) Considering that police and so forth actually do take DNA samples (sperm, blood, etc.) it stands to reason that the only real difference is that they would keep it on file AFTER a person is arrested and not during evidence, though I do suppose they might since they keep every other piece of relevant evidence. I mean, you might as well ask for OTHER evidence back if you believe DNA is that important. The problem with this argument is that the taking of DNA does not harm an individual.
3) With that said, most cases where DNA would be entered in as data would be in cases that they would take that as evidence. In those instances, you might as well tell the police that they are not allowed to take DNA for the purposes of evidence because it violates the law.
Put yourself in the shoes of a family of a woman brutally murdered. They know she was raped before her death and none of the suspects thus far as a match, but the police start comparing the DNA to ones they have in a file and they come across the killer because the man is a repeat sexual offender.
On the flip side of that, imagine you're a serial rapist. What exactly do you have going for you that the genetic material is going to do? So you get caught again, but the worst that happens is that you get a nasty prick in the arm for a blood sample. They might have something of yours, but the only real suffering you go through for the lack of something is you have to replace a bit of blood and you personally do not notice it. Not really that big of a deal.
(Dresden's battle cry going against fairies in book 4.)I don't believe in fairies!
How is DNA sampling NOT a search - regardless of the context? You can't simply assume that the SAME act is completely different because in one case, someone is merely being "processed" and in another case, is being 'arrested'. You show no differentiations between the two, and so neither do I. DNA can be used against someone regardless of the situation - they don't have be under investigation for it to be a breach of right to privacy, either.1) Taking a DNA sample is not a search when processing someone. During evidence taking, yes. The difference? DNA can be used against one (especially in a rape case) and the latter is the equivalent to taking fingerprints and a mugshot. You do not need warrants for them because you have the warrant to arrest said individual.
1.) I think you are confused about the issue. The situation is that it is being proposed that federal agents may take DNA information from anyone they detain - not just arrest, but anyone they choose to detain. No specific reasons are given, and thus none can be assumed. Essentially, putting the act of DNA sampling into the hands of any federal agent. No judge or jury involved at all. A complete violation of the right to due process, which you seem to fail to understand.Considering that police and so forth actually do take DNA samples (sperm, blood, etc.) it stands to reason that the only real difference is that they would keep it on file AFTER a person is arrested and not during evidence, though I do suppose they might since they keep every other piece of relevant evidence. I mean, you might as well ask for OTHER evidence back if you believe DNA is that important. The problem with this argument is that the taking of DNA does not harm an individual.
2.) "Harm" is a principle which you obviously have a different opinion of than I. Something doesn't need to break my leg for me to be "harmed." If I don't want my DNA to be on file for the rest of my life (and well beyond) simply because some fed decided he wanted to bring me in for questioning or whatever, that ought to be my right - and according to the Constitution, it IS.
3.) As to " I mean, you might as well ask for OTHER evidence back if you believe DNA is that important", the difference is plain to see. They are not taking it as evidence in an investigation, simply taking it at their whim. I'm sure they'll be some kind of investigation going on, but you don't need to be a suspect (or even the perpetrator) for your DNA to be taken. THIS is the problem, which you aren't getting.
Police and other government agents are only disposed to collect and retain evidence in connection with an investigation into a criminal activity, wherein a warrant has been issued for the information (or objects); with such a warrant only being issued by the judiciary if it is "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (The Constitution, Amendment IV). It is therefore quite painfully obvious that the collection of DNA sans a warrant is UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is a very simply concept to understand.3) With that said, most cases where DNA would be entered in as data would be in cases that they would take that as evidence. In those instances, you might as well tell the police that they are not allowed to take DNA for the purposes of evidence because it violates the law.
Wait a minute, how is that even remotely relevant? A repeat sexual predator will have their DNA in C.O.T.U.S. ALREADY. By trying to string along the argument into this kind of emotional knee-jerk, you defuse any potential the argument had. Don't try to put people into the shoes of anyone else - because they AREN'T anyone else. Even if we are to accept your hypothetical situation, the point is moot because if the killer in this case was a repeat sexual offender, their DNA would ALREADY be in the system, and the proposed expansion of DNA collection would have done NOTHING to aid in the investigation.Put yourself in the shoes of a family of a woman brutally murdered. They know she was raped before her death and none of the suspects thus far as a match, but the police start comparing the DNA to ones they have in a file and they come across the killer because the man is a repeat sexual offender.
And this is just ludicrously off-point. There is no reason to give this section any dignity. If you're a serial rapist and you get caught, you're going to prison for a long time. This has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, because if you are ACTUALLY CONVICTED off a sex crime, you are ALREADY going to have your DNA taken. It doesn't seem like you are paying attention......On the flip side of that, imagine you're a serial rapist. What exactly do you have going for you that the genetic material is going to do? So you get caught again, but the worst that happens is that you get a nasty prick in the arm for a blood sample. They might have something of yours, but the only real suffering you go through for the lack of something is you have to replace a bit of blood and you personally do not notice it. Not really that big of a deal.
"By means of meditation we can teach our minds to be calm and balanced; within this calmness is a richness and a potential, an inner knowledge which can render our lives boundlessly satisfying and meaningful." - Tarthang Tulku
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests