Supremes Approve DNA Testing of Arrested Suspects

Post Reply New Topic

Unlike those other things, DNA also contains personal information such as markers for genetic disorders etc. That's why some critics have said that keeping the DNA in a database could be a threat to privacy if the person hasn't been convicted of any crime. It's not something that I've ever had a problem though.

While I can see the point of doing this, I cannot help but imagine that it will encourage the conviction of innocent suspects through DNA false positives. Here in New York there was a case of a forensic lab technician who falsified many DNA tests simply because she felt tired and overworked, wanted to go home to her TIVO or whatever... Thanks to cop shows like Law and Order, CSI etc, many people believe that DNA testing is 100% reliable and totally incontrivertible.

Any forensic evidence can be falsified.

Every mode of identification will yield false positives. However in the case of DNA matching the lack of a true positive tends to exonerate the person being investigated.

ruveyn

I wouldn't want a sample taken of anything that could be used to clone me. If it's for identification, that's fine (However, even when something is based on scientific truths, it can still be subject to error in practical use.) But I don't want another me running around 200 years from now - once is enough.

The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson comes to mind. The Los Angeles Police botched the DNA evidence, and Mr. Simpson was acquitted of two murder charges, even though his DNA was present at the scene of the crime.

While I disagree with Fnord on his overall arguement, the issue of false positives, either accidental or intentional, is present with all forms of evidence, and really is an arguement about the creditability of a witness. SCOTUS has increasingly made it clear that an individual person (lab tech) must be available to testify on how a forensic result was reached, and be cross-examined if required.

No, I'm sorry, I don't want them to have that information.

I understand why they want it; they compare it to semen samples from unsolved rapes and other DNA evidence from unsolved crimes.

In theory it's a good idea. If you pick a rapist up on a DUI and find out who he is, charge him with the rape and lock his ass up. Better yet, lock his ass up with a therapist; maybe he won't be a rapist any more when you have to let him out again.

In practice-- I'm sorry, NO. I don't want the rapist to get away with it. I don't want the robber to get away with it. I don't want the killer to get away with it.

But, like others here, I see too many ways it could be abused. I don't want to be geneticallly profiled. I don't want my kids to be genetically profiled. I don't want to see the goddamn eugenecists gain any more traction. I have little enough personhood as it is; I'd like to keep it. I'd like to see my kids grow up to enjoy the state of full humanity I thought I had, not be stuck being afforded even less by a sick world.

Better a false acquittal than a false conviction.

ruveyn

I suppose ... Mr. Simpson was finally convicted on other charges, and without the use of his DNA as evidence.

Personally, I'd rather be exonerated before an arrest than after, so my DNA is already in at least one legal database - the Department of Defense's.

I wonder though ... how many times has Jerry Springer said, "You're not the father" as opposed to the opposite, just because the DNA didn't match? No matter how many times the baby-momma says, "You the daddy", if the genes don't fit, you must acquit!

Because it amounts to a fishing expedition, which in theory the state is forbidden from doing under the 4th Amendment. The justification offered, that the DNA swabs are for identification purposes, is ridiculous, especially in the the precedent setting case, as the state already knew full well who they had in custody, what they did is work backwards from a suspect looking for crimes. That's exactly what the framers intended to protect against with the adoption of the 4th Amendment, general warrants, or the idea of taking someone into custody and then looking for a reason to charge him, vs investigating a specific crime and looking for suspects based on evidence. You can see how the other way could and did lead to abuse.

If the suspect is arrested due to an unrelated matter and his DNA happens to match the DNA taken from the crime scene of a yet unsolved crime, then I would take that as a good thing since that unsolved can finally be solved. If the suspect hasn't committed any previous crimes from which the police might obtained DNA then there's no reason to worry. That 4th amendment provision is probably there to prevent innocent people from being charged with a crime but there's little to no chance of that happening in this case.

In fact, the UK has (I think) has the world's most advanced DNA database. There are millions of samples on there.

Americans have very little to complain about in comparison.

I take it you know how it works? Anyone that gets arrested - for anything - gets enrolled on the thing. Even if there is absolutely no case to answer for your arrest, your DNA is kept on file forever.

Much, much worse - and any "mission creep" has barely had a chance to get started yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin ... y_concerns

There does seem to be some movement towards correcting aspects of it, though, but it remains to be seem what actually happens:
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539488
The articles linked under "Recent Articles" there are worth a look too.

How long before we see "Oh well, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" posted here, I wonder?

Look at this and similar data and think...
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/1 ... ct-autism/

The fact that the presence of an AS condition is rapidly becoming diagnosable by DNA analysis is enough to give pause. One does not have to commit ANY crime if one's DNA presents a case of being pschologically atypical to be a target of social concern. After cases like Newtown, simply being an Aspie or a Autist is automatically going to be a cause for suspicion... While it is common understanding here on Wrong Planet that autism is not an automatically violent or socially dangerous condition - this is not how it is viewed by a lot of the NT police world. For a whole lot of them, it's really simple - a wierdo is a wierdo...

I'm not afraid of being convicted by my DNA ( I am extremely law abiding)...but I'm seriously concerned about being targeted if my DNA shows that I am on the spectrum. Interactions with law enforcement are naturally tense and there are plenty of horror stories out there already about Auties and Aspies melting down under police induced stress with tragic results. I feel that unless there is a serious reason to know, a DNA profile is fundamentally private...and taking samples without valid cause is an unreasonable search and seizure/ fishing expedition.